Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/WJBscribe

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

WJBscribe

Closed as successful by Cecropia (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC) at (172/3/1); Scheduled to end 13:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - When I ran for RfA, one of the things that motivated me to do so was that I often found myself waiting for admins to performs tasks I wanted to help with – spending time reverting vandals already reported to AIV, seeing deletion discussions I could have closed and kept the process moving more smoothly. In deciding to run for bureaucratship I am motivated by similar factors, I spend quite a bit of time pointing crats towards overdue RfAs or Bots that need flagging when I believe the process would run more smoothly were I to have the tools to deal with those myself. One area I’d particularly like to help with is renames, where the burden is shouldered by very few crats who often do hundreds of requests at a time before getting (unsurprisingly) burned out. Secretlondon is nearing 800 renames is understandably tired, Andre is busy in real life and Deskana also has checkuser responsibilities which are understandably a greater priority. So I feel an extra bureaucrat would benefit the community at this time and I’d like to offer to serve in that capacity.

To give you an idea of why I’d make a good addition to our present crat teams, I’m going to summarise the experience I have in the relevant areas:

Requests for adminship

I’m a pretty active participant in RfAs and involve myself in discussion about RfA such on WT:RFA and participated in the recent RfC. I perform various maintenance tasks, such as correcting end times [1] and identifying duplicated comments [2]. I also close RfAs of very new users that no longer have a chance of success per WP:SNOW [3] to avoid a pile up of opposition and offer advice and encouragement to the unsuccessful candidate [4]. I also keep an eye out for overdue RfAs and point crats who are online in the direction of them to try and avoid successful candidates waiting longer than necessary for their tools [5], [6].

Username changes

I’ve been helping out with requests for renames and usurpations since March and would be more than willing to help process the requests, rather than just making the requests are as clear as possible for when a bureaucrat comes to review them. I realised the other day to my horror that between the two rename boards and their talkpages, I have over 1200 edits related to renames. I’ve helped several crats who had not performed renames before understand the issues raised by the more complex requests. When several crats felt it would be beneficial to those involved in the process to have some guidelines that gave an indication of how existing crats exercised their discretion to rename users, I worked with Deskana to draft the Wikipedia:Changing usernames guidelines.

Bot flags

The bureaucrat role here is rather different as crats are expected to flag and deflag Bots on the recommendations of the Bot approval group, rather than apply their judgment to the Bot approval request. Indeed bots that don’t require flags are approved without any crat input at all. I generally keep an eye on bot requests and try and point active crats in the direction of Bots that need flagging [7], [8], [9]. I also have a decent knowledge of Bot flagging practice and have been able to spot a Bot listed for flagging that shouldn’t be [10] (anti-vandal bots need to have their edits visible in recent changes). As a crat I would fulfil these requests rather than simply passing them along.

I hope to bring plenty to the job and would be honoured if the community felt able to trust me in this role. If not, I understand totally and I’ll get back to doing what I’m doing now… WjBscribe 13:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A. I am familiar with the various debates and schools of thought on RfA closes. Bureaucrats are expected to promote candidates where there is a community consensus that they are suitable for adminship and to not promote where such consensus is absent. Consensus in this area is rather a creation of Wikipedia and I don’t think a dictionary would be of much help. Consensus in the RfA context tends to be more a more numerical thing than that at AfD because the question being asked is far more subjective. Commentators are being asked whether or not they trust the candidate to be an administrator – as a result the fact that User:Foo does or does not trust the candidate is relevant information in of itself. However determining consensus is not a matter of counting votes – a crat shouldn’t be in a position where one more opinion one way or the other would have affected the outcome. Percentages are sometimes applied to debates as an indicator of the flow of the discussion and there is an expectation that a candidate supported by more than 80% of the community will be promoted and that one with less that 70% will not. Those are not absolute limits, but a crat should not depart too readily or too far from those expectations and should provide a very clear account of their assessment of consensus and the factors they took into account. In most cases, input from other crats should be sought to confirm that the case is appropriate for such a departure. A crat that the community felt was not respecting their consensus would undoubtedly be asked to stand down.

I am open to change in the manner RfA operates and should the community agree to change the way RfA works – either decreasing or increasingly the level of bureaucrat discretion, I would judge the outcomes based on that community agreement.

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

A. I have no plans to throw myself into controversy any time soon. But when a controversial decision does come up I wouldn’t shrink from it. If uncertain, I would open up the matter for input from other bureaucrats – so long as this is to discuss the consensus of the discussion, not the crats sitting as a committee to make their own decision on the merits of the candidate. If I am able to determine the consensus or lack of it, I would be sure to explain my reasons as clearly as possible and to listen patiently to feedback and criticism. We’re all learning when we’re editing Wikipedia – bureaucrats should be no different. In my view the key to dealing with contentious nominations is to ensure that discussions are clear, full and public – such discussions shouldn’t happen behind closed doors.

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

A. Wow, that’s a question that rather asks me to blow my own trumpet. I think I have a strong knowledge of the policy areas involved and that I have always interacted well with other members of the community. I have been involved in mediating disputes and I engage civilly and productively with other users. Ultimately this is a question I have to ask of the community – do you feel that I have yet met the standards you require of a bureaucrat?

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. Absolutely, I already spend time in those areas as I have detailed above. My helping out with the rename boards can easily be switched to performing/rejecting the requests and I keep an eye on Bot flag requests and RfAs as it is.

Completely, truthfully, totally optional questions from Majorly

5. Have you ever nominated anyone for adminship? If so, who and why?

A: I have nominated: RockMFR, C.Fred, Armedblowfish, FisherQueen, Elonka, JForget, Alasdair, Acroterion and Royalbroil. In each case, I made the nomination because I thought those users had a balance of experience that would make them an asset to our admin team. Wikipedia has an ever increasing neeed for good admins and I encourage everyone to keep on the lookout for users who would be well suited to the position - I have been attempting to find at least one person a month to nominate for adminship to play my part in keeping up our admin numbers.

6. Have you ever disagreed with a bureaucrat's decision on an RfA when the candidate was promoted with less than 75% of the vote, or not promoted with more than 75%?

A: My opinion here is about the discussions and there outcomes, not my personal view of the users involved. As to the first category of contentious RfAs you refer to, one close that troubled me at the time was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 3 - there was strong opposition from very respected members of the community and many supporters acknowledged the validity of those concerns. The closing bureaucrats' comments gave the impression that a key motivating factor in their decision was their personal impression of the candidate. It seems to me important for bureaucrats to stick to evaluating the consensus of the discussion and not the merits of the candidate. If one has a strong opinion it is better to join the discussion and let another crat determine consensus. In the end, I don't think promotions in such circumstances do the candidate any favours as their later actions can be undermined by their adminship being on a less stable footing than had they run again at a later time having addressed the concerns raised. Turning to the second category you ask about, I am not currently aware of any promotions of candidates over 75% where I have disagreed with the bureaucrat decision - I may have disagreed with the community's judgment of the merits of the candidate, but that is a very separate matter - everyone won't agree all of the the time. But should such an example come to me, I will of course expand this answer.

7. (Very personal question here ^_^). My own RfA was withdrawn by myself after I volunteered to give the tools up, and be reconfirmed by the community through an RfA. Raul654 stated he would promote me without another RfA. Would you promote me without an RfA? Do you think that withdrawing it requires another RfA if the user wants to be an admin again (bear in mind the majority of the opposers were opposing the process, and not myself)?

A: I think you will agree that this has become rather a tricky issue - Raul654 has taken one position while Cecropia and Secretlondon seem to have taken opposing ones [11], [12]. Although I generaly agree with the position of the latter two about those who go voluntarily through RfA and then withdraw, I think your case raises special issues that would make me lean towards taking Raul654's position. Accusations of sockpuppetry from someone with authority can have a serious chilling effect and I can see the logic in taking that RfA as a "nulity" rather than a withdrawn attempt. That said, it might be wise for someone in your position to go for RfA again (painful though that process is) so that any admin actions you made in the future were backed by a clear mandate. It seems to me that many who saw little point in your reconfirmation RfA the first time would be minded to get involved were there a future one.

In your case however, I think I would have to recuse myself from acting. I am strong believer that bureaucrats should not excercise their discretion where they are not (or will not appear to be) impartial. For example on a contentious RfA, a bureaucrat who has stong opinions about the candidate should in my opinion support or oppose and recuse from acting as a bureaucrat in dealing with that RfA rather than waiting for it to end and assessing consensus as if they were impartial. In this case, I would be uncomfortable determining the matter because we have as I see it a good relationship and have met outside Wikipedia. I was up most of the night before you withdrew your reconfirmation arguing with Gmaxwell over the evidence and those factors that strongly pointed to his being mistaken. As one of four administrators who were with you at a time when your alleged other account was editing, I feel myself rather involved in the controversy. I think people would have understandable problems with my exercising a discretion in your case when there are other bureaucrats further removed - both practically and emotionally - from your case.

Optional Question from U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk · contribs)

8.Of course you have my support anyway. Forgive me if the question is too similiar question 6, but would you ever promote a canadate with under 70% support?(Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 3, for example was 69%)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A: I think I cover this already in my answer to Q.1. I guess the short answer is yes, but rarely and cautiously, where there is a consensus to promote in spite of it falling outside the common range where promotions are thought likely. That might especially happen where some of the opposition is very weak (oppostion to self-noms being a recent example of opposition the community attaches little weight to), or clearly mistaken e.g. someone opposing the candidate due to the recent block in their log when they have in fact never been blocked. See above for the more detailed version.

Wait, so are you saying you'd have promoted Ryulong? Majorly (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that was just an example of a promotion that occured under 70%, I don't think U.S.A. was asking my opinion on that particular close. But you may be clearer once I've finished answering your questions. WjBscribe 22:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I was asking based on that RfA. I think (and this is just my opinion) that there was not sufficient consencus to promote. But if you can answer (just interested in knowing) in the circumstance of that RfA, would you have promoted. If you're unsure, that's fine.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

See my answer to Q.6 - note that my views on the consensus of that RfA is no reflection of how I judge Ryulong's competence as an admin since then. WjBscribe 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I know. This is nothing to do with your opionion on the canadate, but whether you believe their is consensus or not.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Another question from Majorly:

9. What is the difference between consensus to promote on an RfA and consensus to promote on an RfB?

A: As things stand there is an expectation that a greater consensus will be required at RfB than at RfA, with controversy having resulted from promotions that were made where the candidate had less than 90% support - for example Essjay and Andre. There is currently therefore a community expectation that opposition to RfBs must be minimal for them to succeed. I noticed earlier that Husond had raised some very sensible questions about whether the promotion threshhold should be higher at RfB at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats - that discussion could perhaps do with being on a more watched page so more of the community could join in. Ultimately it is not for the bureaucrats to announce a change in how RfB will work, it is something that would need considerable input and hopefully a consensus could be reached to stick to the present position or harmonise with RfA. On the substantial issue I am rather on the fence - I see the reason for wanting to ensure that crats start out with overwhelming community support given the difficult choices they may be presented with but I think Husond's point that people are aware they are commenting on a position requiring a higher level of trusts and adjust their standards accordingly is a good one. I would follow any discussion on this matter with interest whether this RfB is successful or not.

Questions from Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs)

10. I had this watchlisted for a while, and when I saw it on my list, my instinct was to oppose, but I couldn't for the life of me remember why (it'll probably come to me eventually...). Why do you think I had this feeling?

A: That's an interesting question. I can't read your mind so can only look for any interaction between us that may have been negative. The only apparent example is my opposition to your 2nd RfA. I originally had a BLP concern that you addressed then the two elements that concerned me where (1) the posting of a private discussion to Wikipedia - regardless of the content of the conversation, I would have expected someone close to running for adminship to know that these could not be posted and (2) an essay you wrote on templating the regulars which I thought was ill thought out and concerned me about your judgment. I stand by those being reasonable concerns - they are things to learn and move on from rather than ones that should bar you from adminship forever but they did convince me that your weren't ready in July. Then I was on the fence about your 3rd RfA and in the end you withdrew before I made up my mind - it was a while ago so my recollection may not be 100% accurate but I think I was surprised that the outcome was worse than that of the first, as it seemed to me that improvement had happened in between. It was a little soon after the previous RfA for me to be entirely comfortable but I did feel that lessons had nonetheless been learned. If that hasn't answered your question, feel free to ask about something more specific if it does come to you.

If I remember something more specific I'll bring it here, but that's probably it... Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 06:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

11. Opinion on Shalom's RfA?

A: That RfA posed rather an interesting dilemma for the community as I see it. On the one hand, I can totally understand the trust issues people would have to someone who had previously run for RfA claiming to be a reformed vandal when in fact still vandalising now making that same claim again. On the other, it struck me that given his contribution levels Shalom could have in the 5 months in between have created a new account and done rather well at RfA with no one noticing the connection. Instead he chose to own up to his past and try to regain the community's trust openly and without subterfuge. Not only did I feel that his honesty and courage deserved credit but as a more pragmatic point I would rather for him to have gained adminship admitting to his past (so that others could keep an eye and make sure that such behaviour did not in fact resume) than for him to gain adminship under a different account without us knowing that this is something to watch for. In the end my opinion proved to be in the minority and I respect that, but I am a little concerned about the message others in a similar position may take from the result of that RfA.

If the final tally had been, say, 34/11/10, and Kathryn NicDhàna questions hadn't been asked (and thus the backlash due to them didn't occur), how would you have closed it? Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 06:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The easiest answer is - I wouldn't as I supported the RfA early on. But assuming I hadn't commented I really can't go on the numbers alone which only give the starting point that a significant number of commentators did not feel they could trust him with sysop tools. To gauge the consensus I'd have to read the opposition and look at the nature of and reasons for those opposes - were any of them described as weak? how well backed up with evidence were they? were their points acknowledged as valid by those who supported or those neutral? how directly did they relate to trustworthiness or competence? I'd also have to look at the strength of the support - did a significant number describe their support as weak or admit to some misgivings about his candidateship? Was there any evidence of sockuppetry? Finally, quite a few people were neutral so their evaluations of the candidate would also play an important part in determining the consensus of the RfA.

12. "Vote" or "!Vote"?

A: Neither. I've said above that RfA isn't a vote (see answers to questions 1 & 8). But I'm also not very fond of the term "!vote" - those unfamiliar with coding language are unlikely to realise that it means "not vote" and would probably interpret it as some more dramatic version of a vote. I'd therefore prefer avoiding terms that may mislead people. My personal opinion is that the English language is rich enough that we can describe users' contributions to RfAs without needing to use code - they can be described as "comments" or "opinions". It actually sounds much more natural for someone to refer to their support or opposition of an RfA that to their !vote on it it.

Optional Question from Dustihowe (talk · contribs)

13. If the community becomes concerned with some of your actions and a majority wish to see you removed, what will you do?

A: If it became evident that a clear majority of the community had lost confidence in me as a bureaucrat I would resign. At the moment this would probably demonstrated through an RfC. Obviously I am and would continue to be subject to review by ArbCom - who could decide to remove my bureaucrat status in the case of misconduct even without such a consensus being demonstrated.

Question from R (talk · contribs)

14. ROFL LOL You say RFA is not a vote. Of course it is silly! After all, we've got the sectioning off of supports/opposes/neutrals, the bolding of words, and my favoritest (omg bad English even though I speak it natively) thing of all...the table that tells the crats the percents! I'm not going to ask you why you think it's not a vote, I'm going to ask you what you will do to help make RFA less of a vote, and to make it so just maybe most people and crats won't look at the stupid bot table, not even read the discussion (death to tangobot btw O_O) and say "ok it's at 74% which is under the absolute set minimum, 75%, which cannot change, so I'm not promoting."

A: It is I think an odd conclusion to assume that because an indication of the progress of an RfA can be given numerically, it must be a purely numerical exercise. Tangobot's summary gives people a decent overview of what is going on, it doesn't dictate outcomes. One of its uses is to give bureaucrats a general idea of how complicated a close is likely to be and therefore how much time might be needed to do a thorough job closing. My answers to Q.1, Q.8 and the follow up to Q.11 give a pretty good indication of how I would go about determining consensus. Those percentage markers give a good idea of the community's general expectations but are not uncrossable red lines, the key element is what the consensus of any given discussion is. I think there is a reason why the tallies are at the top of an RfA page and not the bottom for example - they are the first indicator of how the RfA has gone, not the final one.

Two Three questions from Geogre (talk · contribs)

15. Since you've brought it up, in a round about manner, the hottest invocation of "discretion" and most controversial re-promotion of a former administrator was probably user:Carnildo. An RFA went one way (and would have gone much more that way had not people feared "piling on"), and those opposing were pretty heavily experienced and trusted people, as were many who supported, and yet, in what appears to have been private conversation, 'crats went another way, citing "discretion." Was that a mistake? Geogre (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A: On reading the talkpage discussions about the Carnildo close and Taxman, Rdsmith4 & Danny's explanation as to why they departed from the Community's expectations, it seems to me that they factored in the expectations of ArbCom into assessing the RfA - it seems that they had desysopped him not anticipating the difficulty he would face in regaining the tools. Ideally though if it was the case that ArbCom thought he should regain the tools, then it would I think have been better for them to restore them, rather than a divisive RfA resulting. I note that appeals to the Committee are now more common that RfAs following users being desysopped - both Betacommand and Darwinek pursued that route.

I think you highlight the element that troubles me most about that RfA - the fact that people presuming that it would fail held off their opposition not wishing to "kick him while he was down". That is very much one of the dangers of unexpected decisions. Had there been a conscious decision to lower the barrier for a sysop seaking re-adminship following a desysoping, that could have been made clear in advance and people would have participated in a more informed manner. Either ArbCom or the consensus of an open and well-publicised discussion could have expressly asked the bureaucrats to treat such RfAs as special cases or this one in particular, removing the problematic "surprise" factor. I do not think Carnildo regaining adminship was a bad thing - indeed I am only aware of good work he has done since - but the manner in which it was done lead to people feeling that they had been cheated and that the rules had been altered after the fact.

16. Finally, you have again been somewhat ambiguous, to my eye, about one central question in regard to discretion and consensus: is the default to promote or to not promote at RFA? Does it take great support to promote, or does it take substantial dissent to withhold support? Geogre (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A: There are here two conflicting ideologies - on the one hand adminship is long professed to be "no big deal", yet on the other candidate are asked to demonstrate community trust that they should be an administrator. We often see the very real consequences that unwise use of the tools can have for the project - editors subjected to bad blocks leaving, other feeling understandably indignant. Infighting often resulting when time could be better spent building or maintaining the encyclopedia. Poor use of delete tools can also serious offend users and can have problematic consequences in terms of GFDL. Those consequences can all occur with someone acting in the very best of faith. So caution is understandable and, whilst the expectations of admins should not be unrealistic - people will make mistakes and will lose their tempers and say what they later regret, the onus remains on the candidate to demonstrate that they are suited to the task. If there isn't a consensus that they have done so, they should not be promoted.

17. Really finally, one frequently hears "we have enough admins," and we more frequently hear "RFA is broken," and we even sometimes hear (from me), "RFA has to have quorum." So, where do you stand? If RFA is "broken," and everyone seems to agree that they dislike it, how broken is it, and how imperative is it to "fix" it, and what is the role of 'crats in performing these fixes? Geogre (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A: I recently expressed my views on whether RfA is broken in this RfC. I won't restate them here save to say that I often think that criticisms of RfA are actually criticisms of how people participate in RfA and that work on changing attitudes has been much more successful than that on changing the process. To take an example from your questions, if you review RfAs for the 6 months, I don't think you'll find much mention of "we have enough admins" at all. This followed long discussions of why more administrators would be beneficial and the relative paucity of admins we have compared to total users. Attempts were made to fimly but politely rebut the view that some sufficient quota of admins had been reached and it seems to now not be a commonly expressed view, and widely seen as not being invitself a valid justification for opposing a candidate. There is no quota on the number of administrators this project can have and in my opinion anyone capable of using the tools and with the trust of the community should have them regardless of how frequently they would use them.

As to the "quorum" idea, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. If time constrains us from exploring this here, perhaps we could continue the discussion later on my talkpage. I understand quorum as meaning sufficient participation - given that RfAs are open to all and well publicised I don't really see this as being a problem. If few participate in an RfA but the consensus is clear I don't think it matters that other chose not too - if they had objections they could have raised them and I think this is where adminship really isn't a big deal. There is no requirement that a set number of editors endorse someone for adminshup. Indeed years ago RfAs routinely saw less that half a dozen participants.

General comments

• See WJBscribe's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

• It would seem that a few in the community are looking for me to "drop the other shoe" and comment on this RfB. I stand by my earlier comments on WJBscribe's road to 'cratitude in the context they were made; now it's the community's turn to see whether I was on the right track or not. Cheers to all, Cecropia (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Yes, absolutely. WJB is a trusted confidant, a fantastic admin and a fine fellow. I have absolutely no concerns here and I am certain he has the knowledge and ability to be be an outstanding bureaucrat. Will has my full support in his request for bureaucratship. Sarah 13:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Weak support I trust Will's judgment and believe he would be a good crat my only concern being do we really need anymore? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 13:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)I am convinced KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   I am one of the most active and I expect that if I get elected to the Arbitration Committee that my activity will decrease. In addition, we do need more bureaucrats to perform renames. --Deskana (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

   According to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats we have 12 currently active crats, so if you become less active, 11 is not enough? I do agree that Will is a great choice, but I'm unconvinced that he is really needed. Still I support. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

   I would suggest looking at Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies and Wikipedia:Changing usernames, or WP:CRATSTATS if you'd prefer an easy to read summary of both (important to note that CRATSTATS is normally manually updated by WJBscribe =]). It's clear that a small subset do most of the work, especially when it comes to changing usernames. This month RFA had more activity from other bureaucrats, but the months before that it was again a small subset that did the work. --Deskana (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

   It's always a small group who actually do the work. Secretlondon (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

   More crats are needed - the less glamorous bits (like renames) rarely get done by people. I'm certainly sick to death of doing them all. Secretlondon (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Support One of the Wikipedians whose judgement on most things wiki I trust over my own, and one that I trust to trust the community in turn. His answers indicate he will make good use of the status, being helpfull in many areas. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Support This was not unexpected. Pedro :  Chat  13:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. I am one of the most active bureaucrats and I find myself having less and less time to actually perform bureaucrat actions, due to responsibilities as a checkuser and other things. Even so, if we do not need more, redundancy is good, and I know I can trust WJBscribe as a bureaucrat, so it does not make sense to not give him the rights even if he does not use them a lot due to other bureaucrats being active. In summary, I trust him totally. --Deskana (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Support His service to Wikipedia is immense in ways edit counts cannot measure. I'd welcome such a thoughtful, enquiring, productive personality being added to the crat ranks. --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
7. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - My experience of WJB's insight, helpfulness, and judgement, gives me confidence that he will do an excellent job and can be trusted to benefit the community in this role. He's given unstinting, invaluable advice as a confidant to others that I'm aware of, and probably many times I'm not; I'd also trust him to make good decisions of the kind 'crats have to make, and to consult in difficult cases. The practical question "will he help if appointed" is well answered by examples of his existing work in the nomination. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Support I think WJBscribe will do just fine as a bureaucrat. Captain panda 14:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Support I know this user from elsewhere too. I've seen nothing that makes me think their judgement might be impaired :) (other than by putting this in of course) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
11. Support The nominee is one of the few contributors with whom my experience has been completely positive. Although I have become disillusioned with the project, I hope that this nomination is successful, as I am fully persuaded that the nominee will serve as a model community member. Good luck. --Aarktica (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Support -- Of course, polite and familiar with the bureaucratic processes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Deffo. – Steel 15:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Support An excellent candidate and I agree that an additional 'crat would be useful. Ronnotel (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
15. Strong Support He has been here a long time, with a perfect record. Great edit history as well. --businessman332211 (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
16. Strong support Although part of me wants to oppose this, because then you'll beat me to helping out at Wikipedia:Changing username and usurpations, you'll be adding the {{done}} or {{not done}} tags before I get a chance to add a clerk note :) (Just joking about the oppose). —Qst 15:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
17. Strong support. Excellent candidate based on his overall record as an editor and administrator and his answers to the questions, and the only RfB candidate I can recall with experience in all of the eclectic areas (RfA's, renames/usurps, bot flags) where the bureaucrats have roles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
18. Strong Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. Talk Email 16:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
19. Support. Excellent motivation for running. That should be enough to support in itself. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 16:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
20. Support -- trustworthy and familiar with the tasks Agathoclea (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
21. Support on the basis that there is a need and WJBS is somweone who can be trusted. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
22. Support — Rlevse • Talk • 17:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
23. Support About the most obvious support I could ever vote. --David Shankbone 17:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
24. Strong support - I've worked with WJBscribe on a number of different area's here and I've always found his judgment to be excellent. He interacts with users extremely well and always strives to answer any problems that users have. I think what we should look for in a candidate at RfB is there ability to judge consensus, and WJBscribe almost single handedly closes RfD discussions, where, in my opinion anyway, he always comes to the right conclusion. It's my same opinion with his closes at AfD and he always tries to give reasoning to his closures when there is any ambiguity surrounding them. It's important the crats do offer explanations of their decisions when asked for them, and this can often help to stop any wikidrama before it even begins. I trust WJBscribe to communicate after any concerns more than just about any other user here. He is the most active person at WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U by far, and he often has to prod the crats to perform name changes, his excellent understanding of the username policy coupled with knowledge of the process means the only reason why he can't do them himself is purely technical. I got the pleasure of meeting him at the manchester meetup in June, and he's an intelligent guy - I trust and respect him. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
25. I very strongly support this request for bureaucratship. WJBscribe is already an "RfA clerk", and him being a bureaucrat will be a tremendous benefit for Wikipedia. He is a very effective and efficient admin, is always civil and polite, handles stressful situations well, and is clearly one of our greatest users. On other notes, WJBscribe assumes good faith, he has a good userpage, can spell the word "bureaucrat", and made sure that this RfB ends on the 29th of this month. :) Overall, he has been an excellent admin and will make an excellent bureaucrat. Acalamari 17:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
26. Strong Support, best candidate in a long time. Wizardman 17:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
27. Support - every time my watchlist lights up with WJScribe making a comment, I make a point of seeing what he has to say. His wise, kind, and thoughtful contributions mark him well as being the sort of person who would use these tools in a beneficial manner. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
28. the_undertow ^talk 18:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
29. Gracenotes^T § 18:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
30. Support - Even before he was an admin, I learned to rely on WJBscribe's calm advice and knowledge of policy. He has been unfailingly helpful and civil, especially in contentious debates. His comments in policy discussions and mediations show him to be one of the most neutral and good-faith Wikipedians I've worked with. He is already helping out in the 'crat areas where he will be working, and it will only benefit the project to give him to tools to do those jobs more effectively. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
31. Support - I normally don't comment on these types of things, but WJBscribe is such an excellent editor in all the ways that are required for bureaucratship.--Danaman5 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Thoughtful and thorough answers to questions above. My experiences and exchanges with him indicate he is well versed in policy and his judgment on Wikipedia seems exceptionally sound. I have never seen him be uncivil or unreasonable. I agree with Kathryn's note above: the fact that he is already helping in 'crat areas up to the limit of his editor and admin powers indicates this is a logical move. I believe he is trustworthy for this position and his abilities are up to the tasks involved. Pigman^what?/trail 19:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
33. Support good user and administrator, will make a good addition to the bureaucrat team. Cbrown1023 talk 20:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
34. Support I trust him. I am confident he won't do something totally evil (or bad in the slightest) like giving the bcrat flag to Wily on Wheels or some random vandalism only account on AIV. :P FunPika 20:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
35. Support trust him fully, and he has been doing a lot of the administration work around the roles of bureaucrats for a long time now. There can be no better candidate - he does more work for the bureaucrats' effort than some of those with the flag. Martinp23 21:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
36. Support Excellent, experienced, trustworthy candidate. Húsönd 21:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
37. Strong Support - absolutely. I have absolute confidence in WJBscribe, esp. considering his extensive work in 'crat areas already and given his experience as a powerful mediator and arbiter of community opinion. His answers to the questions were spot-on and I am in no doubt as to his impartiality. He has my full support - Alison ^❤ 21:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
38. Strong Support. WJB. is one of our prime resources at WP:CHU(/U) and the related Bureaucrat pages, a frequent contributor over on Requests for Adminship, an asset to the MedCom (which only serves to demonstrate his trustworthiness), a friendly user who is happy to provide assistance, and an experienced encyclopedia contributor. His candidate statement shows he's on-the-ball and always ready to lend a hand, and I have absolutely no qualms in throwing my support in this rather obvious-choice candidate for the 'Crat tools. Best of luck. Anthøny 21:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
39. Support: I trust WJBscribe and his answers to the questions are convincing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
40. Still the same trust I had at the time of his RfA. No worries. ··coelacan
41. Support - I absolutely trust WJB to do the job well. He has always been a solid editor, then became an excellent admin. This is the next logical step. Thanks for helping the project out, WJB. Jeffpw (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
42. Support I trust his judgement and his ability to do the job well. Secretlondon (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
43. Support It was pretty obvious I was going to support, but I'll point out the answers to my questions were excellent. Thank you for serving! Majorly (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
44. Bloody oath yes. Daniel 23:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
45. Support - trusted editor and admin, good luck. ELIMINATORJR 00:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
46. Was-waiting-for-this-watchlisted-redlink-to-become-blue support. WODUP 00:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
47. Support what to say thats not already been said. Gnangarra 01:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
48. Strong support already a clerk on WP:CHU and deserves to be a bureaucrat. Now it's your turn to rename users. NHRHS2010 talk 01:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
49. As a 'crat on two other wikis, (Commons and Meta) I know that there is a lot of detail oriented work that needs doing, and renames especially can be quite "boring". I do not buy the "we have enough crats" argument, you can always use more trustworthy 'crats, as "many hands make light work". I think WJBScribe has demonstrated dedication to the project, skill and finesse. Support with every best wish for success. ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
50. Support another friendly person to bug when looking to get flags assigned :) -- Tawker (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
51. Support I have incredible confidence in both WJBscribe's work ethic and also his dedication to the project and his ability to prioritise different cases as an admin and clerk of various different things (including his ability to fix my errors on WP:CHU :P) He shows persistent good faith in his dealings with others. I am happy to support this candidate. Orderinchaos 01:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
52. Support that is so strong it's worth making an edit for. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
53. Strongest possible support. Andre (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
54. Support. Will make an excellent 'crat.--Kubigula (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
55. Strong Support If there ever was a candidate who would warrant a waiving of the somewhat standard year as an admin requirement, WJB would be it. WJB is an excellent administrator, and has always shown himself to be knowledgeable, and a voice of reason. In addition, he is one of the best suited admininstrators for the bureaucratship, as he is active at the username boards, RfA and bot flagging. I believe he is correct in his assessment about the need for more bureaucrats, especially if Deskana is appointed to ArbCom. WJB is an outstanding candiate for bureaucratship. We've seen Deskana, Nichalp, Andrevan and Secretlondon, and we'll probably see Cecropia, so I wonder if there will be any bureaucrats who will be able to close this? ;) I (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

    It's occasionally happened that 'crats have closed even controversial nominations they've been involved in. No harm in Deskana, for example, closing this one with consensus so clear.--chaser - t 11:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

56. Sure, why not. Grandmasterka 05:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
57. Support-Everything looks good to me! Tiptoety (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
58. Support. The reasoning for the request is sound and all the answers ring true. I am confident in this user's abilities. SorryGuy 05:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
59. Support Great track absolutely no concerns both as a user and a admin.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
60. Strong support, I can honestly say that I trust the nominator. Spebi 06:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
61. Support - very active, seen him all over the place, don't recall any negative experiences. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
62. Resounding support —Kurykh 06:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
63. Support – a trustworthy user with broad experience and reasonable views on RfA. ×Meegs 06:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
64. Support Absolutely. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
65. Support. Candidate has been among the administrators I hold in the highest regard, and has been constantly reasonable and demonstrated trustworthiness. I have full confidence that determination of consensus will be carried out in a responsible and fair manner. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
66. Support do I have to give a reason? Kwsn (Ni!) 07:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
67. Support I had this page watchlisted for this very reason, I can think of no reson why Will should not become a b'crat. --Chris 07:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)\
68. Finally. John Reaves 07:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
69. Support I'll jump on this bandwagon. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
70. Yep, yep and yep... --D_arkF_alls ^talk 08:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
71. absolutely has demonstrated sound judgement, would make a fine bureaucrat--Hu12 (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
72. Support Even if we don't need more, it's good to have a surplus waiting for shortages that inevitably arise, and Will is an excellent candidate.--chaser - t 11:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
73. Support. I don't really care if we need more crats, as long as they are good ones. No doubts here. Fram (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
74. Support. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
75. Support seems like the right person for the job. - Modernist (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
76. Support Since I can't think of a witty rationale, I'll just say "Should have been made a 'crat long ago". —Animum (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
77. Support: Certainly. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
78. Support He looks like hes deicated, responsible, and will do a fine job. Esskater11 17:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
79. Support Lara❤Love 17:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
80. Support — Do I even need to have an explanation? —Jonathan 18:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
81. I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this message! - 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
82. Support, as this will certainly be good for the project. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

    And that is about the best damn rationale clearly stated I've ever seen. Well said. Pedro :  Chat 

83. I've seen WJBscribe at CHU numerous many times, my 85+ edits there are no match for his experience and ability to reason and mediate excellently. His constantly outstanding contributions can be seen right across the board, and his favourable decision to want to help out at CHU shows not only his ability to search and treat weak areas which are currently served by too few bureaucrats but also his dedication to the project. The situation at CHU can sometimes get quite "hot" (shall we say) and his expert ability to protect opinion and consensus whilst being able to negotiate an outcome, is a brilliant quality to have. His effectiveness at trying to help somewhat strained relations between me and Secretlondon, has helped me to gain a greater understanding of what it is like to be a 'crat, I fully understand london's position and I apologise for any misleading or incorrect information I may have supplied. Furthermore, I would welcome any decision to have any bureaurats at the rename page, it can sometimes get severly backlogged, nevermind WJBscribe. Rudget.talk 20:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
84. Support I don't like the fact that he's been a user for less than a year, which is more than enough for an admin, but not very long considering there are only about 10-12 active bureaucrats. I'd also like to see a few mainspace edits rather than 100% administration. On the other hand, he's a polite and helpful member of wikipedia! He's also articulate instead of a grunt of "umm, yes". Support! Archtransit (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
85. Support - A good administrator from what I have seen. Will make a solid B'crat. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
86. Support The more supports someone gets, the less substance each additional support contains. This is most certainly true of this support, which does not even mention the candidate. ;) —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 22:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
87. Support He is a good editor and admin and I don't know many more editors who would be better suited to be a bureaucrat.--Sandahl 23:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
88. Support, and as you all know now, "I thought you were a <insertclasshere>!" I have, and will always hold on to the belief that he should be a B'crat. <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 23:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
89. Support Outstanding admin and helpful toward other users. PrestonH 02:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
90. Strong support, one of the most judicious and wise admins on our project, and will make a great 'crat. --krimpet⟲ 04:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
91. Sure. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
92. Support Duh. Jmlk17 05:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
93. Support Most definitely. Best of luck to you! GlassCobra 05:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
94. Support WJBscribe is a name I have come across many times while "wandering" around Wikipedia, and he's always seemed to be an admin with a good head on his shoulders. My support and well wishes. JPG-GR (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
95. Strong Support, without question WJB is one of the most competent admins we currently have. Mr Which^??? 06:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
96. Support A very good admin. No reason not to support this nomination. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
97. Support. It is nice to see a candidate who is not only qualified by virtue of good admin work, but by actual experience related to the specific jobs of the bureaucrats. Dekimasuよ! 12:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
98. Support - My experience of you is that you are trust worthy, friendly, and helpful - and have the right attitude to make a excellent bureaucrat, I have not found anything that suggests otherwise. Camaron1 | Chris 12:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
99. Support. From all my interactions with WJBscribe, I'm absolutely confident that he will be an excellent asset as a 'crat. Will (aka Wimt) 14:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
100. WP:100 Strong support. I've seen him pester Secretlondon over renames (ovedue, etc.) so many times... Maxim 14:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
101. Support Great user, great admin, great person. Always seemed very fair and knowledgeable to me. I don't usually do the pile-on thing, but, gotta make an exception in this case :) SQL^{Query me!} 14:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
102. Support: Just don't forget about the little people. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
103. Support Great admin, level headed, and civil. This may be pile on at this point, but made a point to come and break my normal long held view that 'crats should be an admin for a year first, WJB strikes me enough to break that. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
104. Support good admin, trustworthy. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
105. Support no doubt about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
106. This is a Secret ^account 21:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
107. Support. Never thought I'd be one of those "I thought you already were" people, but - since the candidate does so much for the project, I figured this had already happened. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
108. Support. Fairly active accross Wikipedia; we do probably need more bureaucrats, as there are many bureaucratic actions that often need to be done in little time, and I see that this user is quite fast at doing things, especially handling the AFBG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) situation quickly. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
109. Support. Per Charles, so eloquently stated: this will clearly be good for the project. henrik•talk 00:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
110. Support - definitely.   jj137 (Talk) 00:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
111. Should have been a bureaucrat a long time ago. I've seen WJB doing great clerking at WP:USURP, and that alone makes me have extremely strong support. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 03:13, 25 November 2007 (GMT)
112. Unquestionable Keegan^talk 03:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
113. Support - My experience with WJBscribe has been nothing but delightful. He has my full and complete respect - even when I disagree with him, which I occasionally do. - Philippe | Talk 04:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
114. Support. Cecropia, who basically invented the position of 'crat as we know it today, said that WjB was the only person he was absolutely sure would make an excellent 'crat. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 06:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
115. Support. I think you navigated the questions well, especially some there that could have proven a bit tricky. JodyB _talk 12:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
116. Support Good answers to questions, good admin, should be asset as bureaucrat. Davewild (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
117. Support — I can't believe I'm #117 here :-) The guy's one of the best admins around, why should we not give him the tools? --Agüeybaná (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
118. 'Support, of course. Excellent admin. PeaceNT (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
119. 'Support —Reedy Boy 19:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
120. Strong Support. Indeed, I would say, enthusiastic support. I cannot count the number of times I have turned to WJB with a question or a request, and he has never failed to be of great assistance. When I, just recently, pointed out to him that he had neglected to respond to a message I'd left on his talk page, he did not hesitate to apologize for what was merely an oversight. This indicated to me something very good about his character, and how seriously he takes his responsibilities as an admin. Give the man the bump, and we'll all be better for it! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
121. Extremely Strong Support Absolutely. One of the best sysops around.Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 22:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
122. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
123. Support. A fine admin. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
124. Support Follows me around, just like the sinebot does, but he provides helpful answers to questions, quite unlike the sinebot. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
125. Miranda 23:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
126. Support we need more crats, per Secretlondon. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
127. ABSOLUTELY STRONGEST SUPPORT I CAN GIVE FOR THIS PHENOMENAL ADMINISTRATOR!!!!!!!!!!! Maser ^(Talk!) 02:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
128. Support I think we need more active bureaucrats, and he surely fits the part. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 02:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
129. Jumps on the bandwagon Support You'll be a good burecrat. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
130. Support for simple reasons: we need more b'crats and I don't think you'll screw it up. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
131. Obviously. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 10:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
132. Support, good person for the post. Neil ☎ 11:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
133. Support, it's obvious to me as it is to everybody else. Now we'll need to recruit some more gnomes to do a lot of the behind the scenes maintenance/record keeping work he's been doing. NoSeptember 14:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
134. Strongest Support. I first encountered WJBscribe when we had a disagreement over an AfD discussion. I initially opposed his RfA. His reaction was just and I later changed my comment to support after evaluating his contributions. Since then I have seen his work all over Wikipedia. He never held a grudge against me. In fact, he approached me asking if I would consider running to become an administrator. I can't imagine anyone being more fair and well-balanced. He exemplifies everything a bureaucrat should be. Royalbroil 15:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
135. Really strong support I'm this far down!--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
136. Strong Support - We need more bureaucrats and I trust you will help out a lot :) -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 22:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
137. Support ON WHEELS!!! Excellent user. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
138. Support Good responsible admin; no problems. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
139. Support A thoughtful & level-headed wikipedian. Has provided good answers to questions and good contributions generally, from my experience. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 00:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
140. Support. The candidate has the right (write?) stuff for 'cratdom. Majoreditor (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
141. Lord, yes Cheers, :) MikeReichold 02:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
142. The Scribe is always a voice of sanity. If only we had a hundred of his ilk. --JayHenry (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
143. Support Sure! King Lopez ^Contribs 03:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
144. Why the hell not? Ral315 » 04:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
145. WJB’s answer to Q12 should be required reading for anyone participating in the RfA process. As for the other questions, I really can’t remember where I had the negative connotations of WJB from, and I’m now guessing it was probably a lame, immature, revenge style motif from my 2nd RfA several months ago, as he alluded to in Q10. I was also glad to see his stance on Q11, although I would have liked to see a more decisive answer to my follow up. However, I was very impressed that he was willing to give Shalom, someone who thoroughly deserves adminship for the countless good thing he’s done recently, a second chance. I’m sure WJB won’t inappropriately promote a candidate, but I do think he will fight for a fairer RfA system, which is absolutely needed. Whilst I have not seen WJB around at CHU(/U) or BRFA, I support him with the crat-mop there simply because the tasks require minimal thought or ability anyway. In his answers to my questions, WJB presented a competence in RfA/B, the (unfortunately, perhaps) most complex and dramatic crat task. And I’m guessing he can spell bureaucrat, another reason to support (joke stolen from Acalamari). For these, and many other reasons that don’t need to be listed, WJBscribe has my strong support in this RfB. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 04:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
146. Support Cannot find any reason to oppose. Mr.Z-man 04:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
147. Strong support I have had the pleasure of interacting with WJBscribe on a couple occasions, and he has always been exceedingly helpful to me, as well as always being quite thorough in explaining things to anyone who asks a question. I have never once seen anything that has caused me to pause when I've run across his edits, or administrative actions, and I've seen him around quite a bit. I have been watching this RfB for several days, going through WJB's contributions, as I always do, but I honestly find no reason to not support wholeheartedly. I have to say, when you look at the percentage of active bureaucrats to editors, (13 active bureaucrats performing tasks, and well over 5,500,000 accounts) and the amount of requests that are there to be done, such as RfAs, renaming accounts, helping with bot access rights, etc., I cannot see why we should not have more bureaucrats, if the tasks for bureaucrats are caught up, then they are still here to help with administrative tasks, or work on editing. But I think it is likely that adding another bureaucrat would be very helpful. I think WJB's answers to the questions show a patient, understanding, mature editor who has a wide knowledge of the project and policy. I am especially impressed with WJB's answer to question 12, as it echoes the way I feel 100%. (In fact, I had never seen an exclamation point in front of a word to mean "not", prior to editing here, I always have used the ≠ symbol.) All WJB's replies to the issues here show his dedication to helping Wikipedia. I have no doubt that he will make an excellent addition to the bureaucratic team, and I sincerely hope he is given the chance to help out in this capacity. Ariel♥Gold 04:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
148. Strong support, I rather expected you to run arbcom but it appeared RfB. A bit disappointed, but whatever. @pple complain 05:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
149. Support trust is not an issue here. Will be an asset in this new role. Bencherlite^Talk 08:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
150. Support Nothing but good can come out of this. Spellcast (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
151. Support. Trustworthy, experienced user. utcursch | talk 14:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
152. Support - good candidate - discusses things in a calm and well-reasoned manner. Good answers to the questions. Should make a good bureaucrat. Carcharoth (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
153. Support GOOD LUCK!! Dustihowe (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
154. Support. I'm convinced that he's trustworthy and knows what's good for Wikipedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
155. Strong support —DerHexer (Talk) 21:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
156. Strong support With the lack of 'crat-related backlogs, there are very few administrators who I think should be supported at RfB at this time. However, WJB's prolific contributions to the wiki mean that he is one of those few. An extremely good administrator whose decision-making is pretty much faultless and a nicely completed by a lack of excess wikidrama, dare I say it, perhaps almost the perfect candidate. Best of luck! GDonato (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
157. Strong Super-Duper Support - Bah..I missed another great RfB...people should tell me in advance >:( ....--Cometstyles 21:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

     It's not over yet. :P --Charitwo ^talk 23:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

158. Support absolutely! Great admin, trustworthy, level-headed and always very reasonable. Dreadstar † 22:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
159. Support. Can't believe I've forgotten to record this until now. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
160. Support. Seems sensible. A trustworthy, experienced user who is needed at the areas that Crats work. Woodym555 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
161. Support - we need more crats, and who better than one of the best administrators on the project? DEVS EX MACINA _pray 00:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
162. Major Absolutely Yes Support - If promoted, will be one of the few 'crat's I could honestly say I could trust. I think WJBscribe is incapable of making a mistake. :) Good luck. Spawn Man (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
163. 100% Support - I have had nothing but positive interactions with WJBscribe. Well liked and respected, WJBscribe stands out among trustworthy editors. -- Jreferee t/c 09:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
164. SUPPORT - one of the finest admins Wikipedia has. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
165. Strong support, without reservations. WJBscribe has done excellent work as an admin, and I have no doubt that he will continue that as a 'crat. --Kyoko 17:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
166. Support A friendly user with a lot of wikiexperience. Would make a good bureaucrat for the project. LordHarris (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
167. Support --Charitwo ^talk 23:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
168. Support - Will is already doing much of the work of a bureaucrat, and is clearly capable of taking up the full task. Acroterion _(talk) 03:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
169. Support per Cecropia (who hasn't, of course, explicitly supported, but that's no matter...). Joe 05:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
170. Strong support in the extreme. Duh. If anyone needs these tools, well, it's the user who does all the menial jobs. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
171. Support. A solid, hard working admin with good judgement who will do the job well. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
172. Support. I can think of no good reason not to support, and can imagine the excellent work he would do if promoted, which makes supporting very simple really. Nick (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per my long held views. Nothing against WJBscribe who is an outstanding admin. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

   Would you be able to tell us what these views are, for those of us who aren't familiar with them? (If you've written about them before, as I infer from your statement, surely a link will do!) Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

   Mr. Gustafson think's that we do not need more bureaucrats, period.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

   (ec) His views are "we do not need any more bureaucrats". This view is clearly contradicted by my response to one of the first supporters, but there we are. --Deskana (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

   The total lack of suprise with which I greeted this RfB is only matched by my total lack of suprise that Jeffrey once again chimes in with commentary that adds exactly zero value to discussion, and that once again he has the arrogance to not bother explaining it to those fortunate enough not to be aware of his "long held views". Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

   With all due respect, a peremptory announcement of blanket opposition to all RfB's based on the claim that we need no more bureaucrats, unaccompanied by any analysis suggesting why this statement is true and contemporaneous with comments from existing bureaucrats stating that it is in fact false, represents an unreasoned oppose !vote that does not contribute to consensus decision-making and should therefore be disregarded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

   He has given reasoning before. I think Jeffrey believes the inactive bureaucrats (well, inactive doing bureaucrat tasks) should be removed before any more are made. I tend to disagree with this opinion, BUT his comment is valid and should be regarded as much as everyone elses. Majorly (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

   Majorly. That's poor for you. I've given reasoning before why I think that Marmite can be beaten until it turns white. Sadly, That was 6.5k edits ago. Incredible though it may be, I don't actually expect other editors to go digging through my contributions to see my ratioanle for commenting on the emulsifying abilities of a yeast extract. I'm one of those old fashioned people (these days) that thinks it's polite to bring it back to the discussion when it's relevant, rather than arrogantly assuming that others either know, or will go looking, for my opinion. Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

   I didn't say it is acceptable for Jeffrey not to explain his oppose. I simply said his oppose is valid. I assure you that the bureaucrats know what it is - and that's all that matters really :) Majorly (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

   Really? So basically as long as the 'crats know what a oppose or support is based on, as opposed to the community having it clearly presented, then any oppose or support is just a number. Good to note that you think RfA is no longer consensus driven but for the crats to decide what counts and what doesn't. Pedro :  Chat  21:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

   No, you misunderstand. I did not say it's up to the bureaucrats. But I'd rather not argue about this, as it is the wrong forum and will only cause bad blood. Majorly (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)#

   Ok. Let's move from here. Pedro :  Chat  21:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks Majorly. I have opinions on when more crats would be needed. Those conditions do not exist yet, in my opinion. It is not less valid because I disagree with current crats (or everyone else, ftm). I honestly believe this, otherwise I would not !vote this way. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

   Jeffrey, you astound me. The validity of your opinion or otherwise is without value in a discussion if you can't be bothered to express the reasoning. This isn't complex. If you want to oppose for your reasons at least have the common courtesy to state your reasons. Pedro :  Chat  20:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose nothing personal, heck at one time I even told you to go for it. However, I'm not happy with any 'crats involvement in any sort of closed group (medcom, ect). Your response to question #2 given by Majorly troubles me: there was strong opposition from very respected members of the community. This sort of attitude creates elitism, and I've seen times when MedCom members who are admins try to get there medcom buddies through RfA, such as this RfA, where you felt the need to reply to nearly every opposer. I worry that you'd promote just to get your wiki-friends through the process. I also have concerns about your communication. CO 20:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

   I do see your point, but at the risk of doing exactly what you believe was wrong at that RfA, I don't think 3 replies out of 18 opposes constitutes to replying to almost every opposer. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

   To respond to some of your points, I looked at that RfA, and to be honest, WJBscribe did not respond to all, or even to nearly all of the opposers; he responded to three, including responding to your oppose. Secondly, regarding concern over WJBscribe's communciation, I have no idea what you mean by that; WJBscribe is easily one of our most communicative users here, giving good responses and details to people; plus, I find that comment about his communication unfair considering the fact you didn't reply at all to other users' responses to this (made only ten days ago), as noted here. Acalamari 20:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

   I too have reviewed the concern expressed in this comment and find it to be totally without substance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

   I cannot in my good conscious support someone to B'crat if this is not explained... Did this guy violate anything? Do we have a RFCU? Remember that it's allowed to use alternative account when editing in area that are prone to disagreement. Without a good judgment there, I cannot support. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Strike for now. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   In my opinion the contribution history of that account speaks for itself. Some months back a number of editors who were identified as here to push a pro-pedophilia agenda were indefblocked, most by Arbitrators as I recall. Now some months later (now that the checkuser data is stale) we are seeing a lot of new accounts and IP editors who are displaying the very same problematic behaviour that resulted in those blocks. Add the fact that this user's familiarity with Wiki-processes (e.g. the speed with which they found the 3RR noticeboard) and the likelihood of block evasion is overwhelming but identifying which exactly was there former account is problematic. ArbCom have asked that appeals of such blocks be addressed directly to them. I do not think there has been such an appeal in this case. I believe my actions in this case are fully in line with instructions from checkusers and arbitrators on dealing with accounts that display such edit patterns. I also don't see how the details of this block are relevant to holding bureaucrat access, seeing that the functions of a crat have no relation to the blocking policy. WjBscribe 09:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   As a checkuser, I have no problems with this block, and I have done several such blocks myself. The Arbitration Committee and the other checkusers have been taking a very hard stance on problematic editing from pro-pedophile activists, and the Committee wishes unblock reviews to be conducted privately on their mailing list. That is the encouraged way of handling that specific problem, and WJBscribe's actions were justified and not without precedent. --Deskana (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

   This is the standard procedure that has been indicated to administrators dealing with such topic areas by the Arbitration Committee and Checkusers for such situations, as far as I'm aware. Daniel 11:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose I will never support a bureaucrat who supports censorship of wikipedia. This is not what wikipedia stands for.--STX 04:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, that is exactly the response that WJBscribe should have given. It's hardly censorship to have the best interests of Wikipedia and the Foundation in mind. WJBscribe was absolutely correct in his assessment. If anything, this diff has made my support for this candidate even stronger. GlassCobra 04:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

   How is it not censorship for a hook from a well-sourced, well-written article be removed from the main page? Wikipedia does not have to adhere to the fairness doctrine. Lets review what this well respected admin stated:

   This article has an elaborate "criticism" section and is unbiased. Any additional exposure Tancredo gets as a result of the entry being featured on the main page is as much negative as it is posivite. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and the main page is part of the encyclopedia. We don't omit coverage of the riots in France, for example, in order to avoid encouraging kids there to to take part. We cover Nawaz Sharif's return to Pakistan, even though he's a current candidate. Why should we deal with American elections any differently?--Carabinieri (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

   --STX 04:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

   Having an article about a politician running in an election opens the door for accusations of bias. While other admins can differ in their interpretation of policy, I can see where WJBscribe is coming from. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

   STX, I do not control how DYK is updated and nor would my being a bureaucrat give me any further influence there. I have expressed my opinions on the subject after discussing the matter with Danny, who used to work at WP:OFFICE, and intend to sound out Cary Bass on the same issue. I am now listening to the views of others on the subject in the current discussion. At the moment opinions seem pretty divided on the matter. If there is a consensus that such hooks should be included on the mainpage I would have to accept that. I'm not going to apologise simply for disagreeing with you about something however. Although I don't think the content of articles should be censored, I do think a little finesse is needed when dealing with the public front of Wikipedia (such as the mainpage). WjBscribe 09:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

   WJBscribe's comment resulted in Carabinieri, probably the most experienced DYK updater there is, conceding that the issue needed to be discussed first. The discussion at the talk page is currently running at around no consensus, and it is generally accepted that consensus is needed for an article to go onto the mainpage as a DYK if it is disputed by anyone. So far, it looks as if WJB's objections were well-founded, and I await any input the Foundation/Office wish to give on the subject. Daniel 09:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

   Note that the user Southern Texas is the creator of the article in question and I feel this is just an attempt to seek revenge on WJBscribe for him opposing the article appearing on the main page in DYK. But I guess we should AGF. :) Spawn Man (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

   Unless everyone already knew that and I just made myself look foolish... :\ Spawn Man (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

   That was absolutely the right call, though I would be pissed too if I'd spent a lot of time on the article... Grandmasterka 11:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

   We remove potentially problematic material from the DYK sections all too often, at the end of the day, we will get e-mails through the OTRS system complaining that we favour one candidate more than the next if we put election related DYKs on the front page and even if it shouldn't, such complaints can discredit the project. I also happen to think that references to obscure American politicians are undesirable in such a far reaching international project as this. Nick (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral, most regretfully, sorry. WJBscribe is an excellent admin whom I respect, but I have concerns regarding his ability to provide feedback. The concerns originated after he posted a few questions for me on my last RfB, which I have answered there and even expanded one of the answers on his talk page. WJBscribe then disappointed me by failing to provide any comment to my answers, which resulted in the fact that I am still ignoring whether he agreed or disagreed with them, and why. Personally I find this behavior (which is not exclusive of WJBscribe) much to be frowned upon, as in no way it contributes for the clarification and eventual improvement of a candidate, and it even hints at a lack of willingness to provide explanations to those that should need them. Húsönd 19:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Husond - just for clarity do you mean "I am still ignoring... " or is it (which I suspect) "I am still ignorant as to ...". Ta! Pedro :  Chat  19:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant "I am still ignorant as to ...". Portuguese occasionally succeeds in interfering with my English phrasal constructions. Meh. Húsönd 19:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Husond, sometimes people ask you questions just to challenge you and give you a chance to show your best side. If I (me, SB_Johnny) asked a question of a candidate, I might not be looking for an answer that would "determine my vote", but rather just to help clarify things for myself, the community, and above all the candidate. As a good b'crat (I am a b'crat elsewhere, and hopefully a good one), your job is to come to an understanding of community consensus, and it's an extreme sport: you need to ignore your own opinion when reading consensus. Not replying is sometimes the best reply. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Husond, I honestly didn't realise you wanted me to reply. In the course of things had your RfB had remained open longer I would have decided whether I would be able to support it. As I said on your talkpage, I was a little surprised that you were applying for a position for the second time without (in my eyes) having fully researched what it involved. You never expanded the question answer on the RfB itself, which was what I wanted, and your further comment on my talkpage [13] was I think you will acknowledge the safe option, deciding to discuss it with other crats before doing what might be controversial. Ideally I would have hoped you would have referenced the relevant part of WP:CHUG, which is linked to from Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Renames and a discussion of the different issues that might come up - for example whether those edits were simple vandalism, only to user space or to the mainspace and attracting GFDL consequences. Having discussed it with some of the current bureaucrats, the feeling I was getting was that they too had been rather unfamiliar with this area when they applied, so I was minded to accept your reply as an adequate knowledge of the area. You then withdrew the RfB so I could not comment there and, as your answer to me hadn't really taken a position, I didn't really have much to give a response on whereas, had you listed a set of circumstances where you would have allowed usurpation of accounts with edits, I would probably have raised concerns if I disagreed with some of those examples. I hope that clarifies why you hadn't heard further from me on the subject. WjBscribe 20:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with your response. And you are right, by withdrawing my RfB, I prevented you from adding further comments there (even though I did it days after your questions). Changed to support. Húsönd 21:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I feel I should show an interest, just because these nominations come up so rarely, but I'm concerned that it might be a weeny bit early. Deb (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

   You do realise who this is? He's been...er..."hassling" the crat's to close RfAs, change usernames etc for months, and now he's gonna be able to do it himself, which is brilliant. More than likely he'll be one of our most active crats--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

   These nominations do come up so rarely. Wouldn't you agree that WjBscribe was astute enought to reconize the need for one more buraucrat and aware enought of his own experiences to know that he was qualified for the position? His timing is right on (a good quality for a 'crat) so even if it is a weeny bit early in his Wikipedia career there probably are few others ready for crathood and there is a need for new ones. -- Jreferee t/c 15:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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