Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JuJube


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

JuJube
(45/17/7); Ended 04:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

- JuJube's been registered since August '05 and has amassed over 21000 edits - so he's plenty active enough here. Article work is mainly on Yu-Gi-Oh/Animé pages, as well as vandal reversions. He takes part in many admin areas, including WP:AIV and WP:AFD. He definitely has the necessary experience to perform admin chores, and thus I think he should be granted the admin mop.  Majorly  (o rly?) 16:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Sure, I'll give it a shot this time. JuJube 00:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC) In light of the concerns regarding my civility, I've decided the best thing to do is withdraw my acceptance for now. The concerns are legitimate, and I want to address these problems before taking on the responsibility.  WP:CIVIL is not an optional policy. JuJube 04:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 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: Reviewing articles for speedy deletion would probably be something I spend a lot of time doing. I often check Newpages and am surprised at how long some articles last.  Administrators have a lot to do, and I hope to help by giving them less to worry about.  I'd also like to be able to help mediate some debates; as I am pretty much neutral about everything, I can be an impartial mediator.  Ultimately, I'd just like to do whatever I can.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Even though I no longer monitor it, God Passes By (a historical book of the Bahá'í Faith) was started by myself, and it's become quite a nice page. There are other articles that I do still monitor that I feel pleased with, but I feel that contributions in an environment like this should be attributed to the group and not necessarily to the individual.


 * 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: To be fair, I'm pretty blunt and that has gotten me into some conflicts with others, but I believe that the responsibility of being a Wikipedia administrator will give me reason to be less matter-of-fact and more accomodating. I've resisted the idea of being an admin for a long time because I was worried about my ability to do so, particularly on the few topics that I do feel strongly about; but I've changed a great deal since then and I think I can do well at the job if given a chance.  When I'm feeling stressed about a debate, the best thing for me is to walk away, do something else for awhile and get emotional and mental distance.  I often feel less angry in the morning, in short. ^_^


 * Optional questions from User:Xiner
 * 4. Could you explain the gap in your user talk page archives? Could you restore links to your old user talk page archives?
 * A: I'll do that right now.


 * 5. Could you tell me why you told me you had not been warned about your edit summaries before? Why didn't you change your behavior then?
 * A: I'd forgotten about that, honestly; and I actually don't remember adding all those links to Dalbury's talk page message. I'm not going to defend my early behavior because it was wrong and I'm not going to act like I was justified, but a lot of the things I did became habitual and I did it without thinking.  User:Majorly has been helping me become more aware of my problems and regardless of how this RfA turns out, I'm going to be civil in my treatment of other editors.
 * I'm sorry, but I cannot believe that you forgot about the regular reminders you've been receiving for at least a year about your civility, up to March 23! This exchange is not uncommon in the your user interactions, not the first 3RR warning, or warned about biting newbies. You were reminded about maintaining civility just seven days ago in regards to this comment you left. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiner (talk • contribs) 02:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
 * After thinking about it, I could only come to the conclusion that I disregarded the reminders because they didn't carry threats with them. That's deeply troubling to me, and with that in mind, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance.  My apologies to Majorly and those who voted in support, but this is a real problem that requires addressing.  Perhaps in time when I have proven to myself and others that my anger won't get the best of me again, I'll try again.  I should also thank Xiner and Jreferee for bringing this to light.  Sorry, everyone. :( JuJube 04:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * General comments


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


 * A previous RfA was requested for me when I was "Danny Lilithborne" and I turned it down because I felt I was going to get a kidney transplant shortly; that situation has changed, unfortunately, but as a result I believe I will have the time to notify the rest of WP in the eventuality that that happens. In any case, if voters have their doubts, I won't hate you for voting "oppose". :)


 * Because of increasing concerns about JuJube since the RfA started, I decided to check his user talk pages. Unfortunately, there do not seem to be direct links on his pages to his archives, and I can find nothing past March 2006, but it appears that this is not the first time his edit summaries have been called into question, or been warned about assuming bad faith, the first time he's been confronted about his editing style, as well as here. This is quite unsettling for me. Xiner (talk, email) 01:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support Oppose
 * 1) Strong support Thought you were one already, Majorly does great noms! :-) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I see no reason to not. Good luck with the kidneys. Viridae Talk 00:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support Excellent vandal fighter and doesn't let trolls get to him. &mdash;dgies tc 00:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Fourth support. Dammit I'm late! ;)  Majorly  (o rly?) 00:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Why haven't you been nominated before? The Evil Clown my contributions 00:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) I would've bet money on you already being one. John Reaves (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; I believe this user deserves the promotion in trust and potential responsibility. &mdash; Deckiller 00:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - yah, totally. Seen you lots of times on WP:AIV - Alison ☺ 00:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Impressive user. When Majorly nominates someone, you know they are good. Captain panda  In   vino   veritas  01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support This user will make a great admin. Gutworth 01:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Good user who will make a good admin. Cbrown1023 talk 02:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Ditto with Captain Panda.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I've seen JuJube at AFD, and his credentials as given here are superlative. I wish him the best of health. YechielMan 02:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Well, you've been here more 1 and 1/2 years, over 10000 mainspace edits. Good luck. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 02:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. This RFA is way over due! - M s  c  h  e  l  03:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Michael 03:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Good. --- RockMFR 04:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Definitely can use the tools. Heimstern Läufer 04:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. A great editor, and won't abuse the tools. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 06:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. -- LeCour T:C 06:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, has always come across as a good bloke on the very many occasions I've seen him around. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support would make good admin.--Jersey Devil 10:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support good candidate. - An as talk? 10:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (change to oppose) Support per nom. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, seen JuJube around, plenty of activity, not noticed any problems, No Big Deal. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support a name that has been popping up all over the place. I think there are plenty of reasons to support outlined above. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Changed to neutral.  James086 Talk &#124;  Email 13:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 27 --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  13:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hell yeah! – Riana talk 14:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing support, civility concerns are too troubling and too recent. – Riana talk 14:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Terence 14:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support JuJube is a smart, dedicated, calm editor. I'm looking forward to having you as an admin. Gwernol 15:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to neutral Gwernol 14:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Suport Seems reliable and is active enough. James, La gloria è a dio 16:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support more than enough experience.-- danntm T C 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Denny 17:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) No red flags, trustworthy nominator. So yes, I approve the message of Mailer Diablo! Moreschi Request a recording? 19:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support-- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Demonstrates a clear use for the tools with good WP:AIV contributions. Will (aka Wimt ) 20:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Support: Very civil, one of the few editors who sounds like they'll actually use the tools, but enough with my rambling, Support! ~ St ep <font color="#7CFC00">tr <font color="#00FFFF">ip   21:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong support. This user just (a few minutes ago) helped me track down a serial hoaxster and their sockpuppet, both of which I blocked indefinitely. Great work. Also, one of the best when it comes to reverting stupidity, and correcting misguided n00bs. Grand  master  ka  00:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - Lakers 01:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support per everyone else. Acalamari 01:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Weak Support per several of the above, the edit summaries turn it to "weak". Just H 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - dedicated, polite, and reverts stupidity ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Though I agree with Xiner that the edit summary in question is not exactly the best or most productive choice, I see this as a minor point in an overall great record. Pascal.Tesson 02:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Extra comment Like I said above, the edit summaries are a poor choice but I do believe it's not such a critical failure of civility because it's in the edit summaries and not as targeted as an attack on a talk page. In many ways I think "revert stupidity" is not that much more offensive than "revert vandalism" although of course the latter is much preferable. I think we should all assume no ill intentions and take JuJube's word for it that he will be careful in the future. Pascal.Tesson 22:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 18:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. You have had some issues with incivility in the past, but we are all human, and I do think you want to improve. I took Xiner's comments to heart and that's why I support with the hope that you do improve, but Jreferee seems like he just has an axe to grind with the 50+ examples. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Axe to grind? Those examples are over the last 9 days, it is not as though he went back 2 years. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You can comment to me all you want, but it doesn't change how I feel about it. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 17:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support while I personally prefer the blunt approach when someone is dealing with me, you might want to work on curbing it when dealing with the community as a whole. It may cause more trouble than it solves. Anynobody Anynobody 22:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this an oppose? Grand  master  ka  07:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment initially applied to a "support" vote by Anynobody accidentally placed in the wrong section. -- Black Falcon 22:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, because I just don't mind blunt edit summaries that much. Ab e g92 contribs 13:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Concerns about the nominee have now expanded from one edit summary to including personal attacks on user talk pages, conducts that cower newbies into submission, and an apparent inability to tell the truth about past warnings issued him. Xiner (talk, email) 14:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Arfan 14:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) 'Support Whilst civility is nice and all that, stupidity is still stupidity.--Docg 14:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Civility is a policy, and we should be civil even to trolls and vandals, and we should help the stupid. We have too many uncivil admins already, and too little response to such behavior. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose She sounds like a kind of person who may be more than meets the eye. Sethdoe92 18:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ? Grand  master  ka  00:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that the candidate is pretending with all of his actions so far? Just H 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's simple : I'm on new Allergy Meds. odd person
 * With all due respect, you should either explain what you mean or retract that !vote. What kind of weird vague accusation is that? Pascal.Tesson 02:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For one thing, I'm a male. ^_^ JuJube 03:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Pascal, it's the 'crats job to assess the validity, but I concur with you, this "vote"(I don't like the exclamation points) is more than likely going to be treated with suspicion and I hope Sethdoe can elaborate so his opinion can gain more merit in the eyes of the community. Just H 02:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This personal attack, for that is what it is, has no place on WP. Except for the gender mixup, however, it has proven to be more truthful than the nominee's words in this RfA. That is extremely unfortunate. Xiner (talk, email) 14:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose per this edit summary and the diffs by Jreferee. Xiner (talk, email) 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh. That's an old habit.  I did it one time then kept using it since nobody objected.  :/ I can stop doing that. JuJube 00:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no need for such edit summaries, and people have failed RfA's partly because of such actions. We shouldn't use them not because people might object, but because they represent the wrong attitude. I really want to believe JuJube that it's no big deal, but I found at least four such comments in the last 150 edits, plus another worrisome one. Xiner (talk, email) 00:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can tell you there's a lot more than that. Like I said, it's an old habit.  It's in my edit summary cache and I usually just hit "rev" and down to revert vandalism, mostly because I was unaware of the "Undo" button (which I'll use now). JuJube 00:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've thought about it, and will stand by my decision. I'm growing concerned about your justification - that example came two hours ago, and does it mean you'd keep using the same edit summaries in the absence of an undo button? Your RfA looks secure, though, so please let this be a reminder that there's no reason to show your frustration to vandals. Xiner (talk, email) 01:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We are not supposed to take Wikipedia too seriously, hes motto is good he doesn't get stressed easily. Lakers 01:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm partial to sarcastic jokes myself, but calling people n00b's seems a bit too far. Xiner (talk, email) 01:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, that one was a good-natured joke. At least, I hoped it came off that way.  Guess not. ^_^ JuJube 07:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * JuJube, I didn't intend to post anymore on this RfA, but I'm now convinced you're not aware of the depth of my objections. "vain vanity in vain" seems to be another of your favorite phrases; inane cruft shows how easily you're disturbed by misbehavior; this isn't very civil; a variation on the stupidity theme; whining seems to upset you as well; yet another variant of stupidity - and all of these within the past week. I myself sought adminship partly to avoid the lottery that is AIV, but this isn't the way to do it. Xiner (talk, email) 13:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose An admin should know what is uncivil and not have to wait until somebody objects. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Edit summaries are particularly susceptible to Civility issues because they do not transmit the nuances of verbal conversation leading to small facetious comments being misinterpreted. On one hand you are a diligent vandal fighter but on the other these edit summaries seem to work against that goal. March 30 2007: |revert stupidity • revert stupidity • . March 29 2007: revert stupidity • revert stupidity • revert stupidity • huh? • . March 28 2007 vain vanity in vain • revert stupidity • rm inane first line cruft • lovely spam wonderful spam • what the feng shui?! • what? • . March 27 2007: um yea. • vain vanity in vain • aren't you clever • revert stupidity by someone who needs a new hobby • revert stupidity • ugh. • i could have OCD who knows. revert edit by banned user • revert stupidity • boo hoo • revert stupidity • whee. go read the definition of "banned". • banned users can't edit do something else with your life • revert banned users can't edit. do something else with your life • You're the vandal • revert stupidity • nope • stop whining • revert stupidity • so? • so? • . March 26 2007: spaces between parentheses is ugly. • revert stupidity • . March 25 2007: stop creating junk articles • revert stupidity • huh? • revert stupidity • revert stupidity • yea...so? • no you're not. • . March 24 2007: revert stupidity • no one cares • revert might have something to it but needs to be written in something like English • jumping the gun are we? • revert stupidity • . March 23 2007: revert stupidity • revert stupidity • garra is so reverted • revert stupidity • dumb. What concerns me is that you have been potentially inciting other to continued vandalism and/or confrontation just before and during your RfA. These edit summaries appear a way of taking stress out on those most likely to continue vandalizing or otherwise making bad posts on Wikipedia. What also concerns me is that in this RfA you dismiss your 00:06 30 March 2007 post as "an old habit. I did it one time" when it was made only 25 minutes before you dismissed it as something that you no longer do. On March 21 2007 you counter Helpthisisnotright's posted view on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents by blanking it with an antagonistic boo hoo! On that same day you counter another person's view post on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents board by blanking it with a dismissive did you have something important to say? didn't think so. There were more civil ways to handle such situations. There is a lot of support for the RfA, but I do not believe that JuJube is ready. -- Jreferee 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What I said was "I did it one time, and no one objected, so I kept doing it". But I did say that my bluntness was a problem and I believed that bearing the responsibility of being an administrator would curb that. :( JuJube 19:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * JuJube, I'm disappointed more each time you try to defend your actions. Adminship is not supposed to be a cure for incivil comments. Xiner (talk, email) 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if this RfA fails, I still will change the tone of my edit summaries. JuJube 19:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per above. --Fang Aili talk 18:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Jreferee.↔<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 18:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I have seen your contributions on various pages before and had drawn the impression that you are a good editor.  My review of your contributions history only strengthens my impression.  I had come to this RFA expecting to support you, but the fact that "stupidity" (and one instance of "idiocy") seems to be the second most common word in your edit summaries (after "revert") makes me ambivalent.  My decision to oppose is based on two particular edit summaries (see below), in combination with the tendency to overuse "stupidity" (I checked some of the diffs: in most cases it was blatant vandalism, but in some cases it could have been an unintentional mistake and/or test).  The two edit summaries in question are one where you call editors who change a 4-letter acronym ["idiots" and another where you write "no one cares" about a living person.  I could overlook the "stupidity" thing as it's done without any malice, but the two diffs I've provided are more serious and unnecessarily uncivil.  I hope you don't take my "oppose" personally; it's just that I would be more comfortable supporting your candidacy after, say, a month or two of more appropriate edit summaries.  -- [[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]] 20:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am bothered by the blanking of another user's comment (the issue of the hostile edit summary aside). WP:AN/I clearly states that "Any user of Wikipedia may post here." and it is inappropriate to remove others' comments without adequate justification (e.g., personal attacks, etc.).  I might be more comfortable supporting after a period of two months or so of less abrasive/blunt editing, but I must still oppose for now. -- Black Falcon 22:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose - edit summaries are attrocious. The candidates statement that if this RfA fails that it will cause a change in tone is an extremely distrurbing statement.  They should not need a failed RfA to remind them they need to be civil.  If JuJube feels it is needed perhaps it will happen. Johntex\talk 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - per WP:CIVIL concerns. --Abu badali (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - per Jreferee and Black Falcon. Zaxem 23:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong oppose per Jreferee. Quadzilla99 02:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. When I first saw the edit summary based opposes I had assumed a minor problem from the past. Not a regular use of edit summaries to disparage other editors which has continued up to the date of this RfA. Such an attitude is unbecoming of an admin who, to quote ArbCom "are held to a higher standard of behavior than other users, particularly with regard to principles such as assume good faith and no personal attacks." Given that these edit summaries must have stood out on the most cursory of inspections of JuJube's contribs, I am very surprised that Majorly chose to nominate him. WjBscribe 02:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I've known JuJube/Danny Lilithborne for a year or so now and I've personally been fine with interaction, so this a regretful oppose but is based on much of what BlueFalcon linked to above.  My personal interactions with the user cause me to issue a rare oppose.  IMO, the user pays too much attention to the more public face of Wikipedia, but as a result is often brash and unyielding.  Ordinarily that's not so much of an issue, but I recognized JuJube to be Danny Lilithborne after the rename based on the editing pattern alone in RC patrol and that bothers the hell out of me.  I have been and will continue to be more than willing to help the user, but I cannot support someone that I think will cause disruption in a manner that is not inadvertant.  Teke  05:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. I do not agree with the user's overall conduct and manner of behaving, I do not think it is that of an admin. Otherwise, a fair user that should keep contributing to the project. --Sn0wflake 07:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per WJBscribe.--cj | talk 14:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per above concerns. --After Midnight 0001 16:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Change from support. I hate to do this, but the diffs provided by Jreferee are disqualifying, in my opinion. Sorry. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral A little concerned that JuJube did not warn the author of Haldibug, probably a minor oversight due to working on other possible hoaxes.--Ng.j 08:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Is experience "mainly on Yu-Gi-Oh/Animé pages" enough to be a well-rounded admin?--Runcorn 20:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral (changed from support) &mdash; civil edit summaries are huge to me, because civil, succinct edit summaries are key to professional behavior. &mdash; Deckiller 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. Personaly, I'v had very good experiences with this user, and to me he's been a good user. Something kept be from nomming him myself though, which Jreferee sums up better than I could. Taking the WP:CIVIL concerns out he'd be a good admin, hence my not-oppose. But I can't support anyone with those kind of diffs.-- Wizardman 04:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral changed from support. The edit summaries are concerning, but I've seen many good contributions from JuJube. Wizardman took the words right out of my mouth. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 13:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral I am concerned with the issues that have been raised during this RfA. I still believe that JuJube brings a great deal to the project and will make a good admin, but I don't think now is the time. The edit summary civility problems are too recent, and I'm not happy to see this is an issue that had been brought to JuJube's attention in the past without a change in behavior. If I see 2-3 months of appropriate edit summary use I'm going to be back strongly supporting this candidate. Gwernol 14:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral Civility concerns are too recent and too troubling. In about 3 months, I would definitely strongly support JuJube (who is, in all other ways, an excellent candidate). – Riana talk 14:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.