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

JamesBWatson[edit]

Final (102/9/3); ended 08:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC) – closed as successful by —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) – I wish to present to you for consideration !James, an editor who mostly specialises in keeping this place clean, and seems ideally suited to wielding the mop.

Before I nominate someone for adminship, I do a pretty thorough review of the user's contributions. Firstly to check for myself that I believe they are suitable for the position; and then if I think they are, to inform you of my findings to see if you agree. This means that I don't avoid mentioning 'bad stuff', if I think it is relevant. The presence of this nomination obviously means I don't think there are any big enough issues that should prevent James becoming an admin. For James, I have focused on more recent contributions, as these should be the most relevant and there are rather too many edits to go through otherwise!

He even cleans out the sandbox after himself [19], so he clearly knows how to use a rake. Now it's time for the mop (and flamethrower). Peter 17:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Co-nom by SoWhy

Dear editors, admins and other readers. I am happy to co-nom !James for adminship. Although I personally have not been able to edit much in the last months, !James is one of those editors that I have noticed continuously during the last year. A member since 2006, !James started editing for real in May 2009 and has since then managed to impress a large number of editors with his thoughtful and clueful contributions to this project. Now, a year afterwards, !James has agreed to run for adminship in order to help out the project some more. As Peter wrote already, all the usual tests for a candidate check out positive but that's not the most important reason to support someone for adminship. !James is always friendly, despite dealing with new users on a regular basis; he is able to admit mistakes he makes and learn from then; and while article writing is not his forté, he has demonstrated multiple times that he is able to do so and that, while being someone who focuses on vandal fighting, he would not become an admin who cannot recognize good content and can handle article content situations as well.

His speedy deletion tagging is not perfect and I will not lie to you that he does make mistakes occasionally, as do we all. But most of you will know me and know that I won't support (or nominate!) anyone I believe to make too many mistakes in this area. !James usually shows a competent approach to this area but more important, he does also demonstrate that he is willing and able to learn from those he does get wrong. As an admin, I believe he would be even more careful in his approach and that he will be willing to ask for help, input and review whenever he is unsure about anything admin related. And this, a willingness to reflect and to consider that one might be wrong, is one of the qualities that distinguishes an average admin from a great one. I hope you can share my belief that !James can become one of the great ones.

So yes, !James is a user who usually works in vandal fighting and has a large number of automatic edits (but not too high with a 28% percentage). But he is also someone whose comments are clueful and helpful, who helps with problems whenever he can and who does not back off when facing complicated situations. And he is, based on his current contributions, it would be a benefit for the project to grant him adminship. Regards SoWhy 17:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. I was not considering Adminship when Peter suggested it, but within two days three more editors (Shadowjams, Olaf Davis and Sonia) had added their encouragement, and I thought if there are several people who think it is a good idea then perhaps I should give it a go. At some point SoWhy was also kind enough to add further encouragement. Thanks to Peter, who both started the idea and has also put a significant amount of work into preparing for this RfA, thanks to SoWhy who has co-nominated, and thanks also to the others who have contributed their encouragement. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Anti-vandal work. For some time now I have been active on vandal patrol, and at times it is frustrating to see a vandal continue to be disruptive for some time while their username is listed at WP:AIV and waiting for an admin to deal with it. If, in such cases, I could deal with the issue right away, it would mean a little less vandalism, and slightly reduce pressure on other admins dealing with WP:AIV. It would also mean that, instead of continually interrupting what I am doing to revert yet another piece of vandalism by the same person, I could get on with other editing. I have no immediate plans to do significant amounts of admin work in other areas, but there are a few cases where I think I could make good use of the facilities. For example, a while ago a new user posted a request for help to my talk page. He had created a couple of articles, but had now become sufficiently aware of Wikipedia standards that he realised they were not suitable. He wanted to have the articles deleted and start again. I tagged one article for speedy deletion under CSD G7 (author requests deletion), but it took quite a while before it got deleted. It would, I think, have been more helpful to the new editor to have been able to deal with the issue at once by deleting it myself. I give that just as one example of one-off situations which can arise from time to time where having an admin's tools could be helpful, but, as I have said, anti-vandalism work is the only area where I would plan to make regular use of those tools. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are occasions when I have been able to help new users to find their way around Wikipedia, cleared up their misunderstandings, and pointed them in the right direction. Sometimes I have put quite a bit of effort into trying to be helpful, as for example at User talk:AlistairBooya#Your request for editor assistance. This is not my biggest contribution, but I have done it quite a number of times, and I really think when it does happen it is very worth while. A new editor established as a Wikipedian rather than turned away frustrated is an investment for the future good of the encyclopedia. Another reason I regard this as worthwhile is that I am helping another human being who may well have been confused and frustrated, and the real purpose of working on Wikipedia is not to serve Wikipedia, but to to serve the people who come here, whether to read or to edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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: Certainly I have been in disagreements over editing, and there have been times when I have felt a little irritated by other editors. However, at present I can't recall any times when I have been seriously stressed by this, and if it has happened it was quite a while ago. I don't tend to take things personally, even when other editors clearly intend me to do so. I remind myself when necessary that one little dispute is tiny in proportion to the scale of Wikipedia, and which way it goes doesn't matter much in the scheme of things. My ability to think this way has improved considerably over time as I have gained experience. I try to always be courteous and civil, even when I feel another editor does not deserve it. This is very helpful not only in improving relations with other editors, but also in keeping myself cool. Once again, my ability to do this has improved over time. I always try hard to see the other editor's point of view, and to explain my view civilly and constructively. Even when I am convinced someone is wrong, being able to understand how they see things improves communication considerably. An example of a conflict I was involved in involved the article Tómas Davíð. The conflict can be seen in this version of my talk page (split into 4 sections), together with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tómas Davíð. Finally, I am willing to change my mind if I see that other editors have got a good point, and I do so from time to time. A case where I did this can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Husein Alicajic, with a friendly resolution of the conflict here. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Peter
4. You mentioned concerns that people would oppose based on lack of article editing experience. Personally I don't think this is a big deal (though I know it is to some others), as long as you've shown understanding in how articles should be, and an idea of how to get to them. Are you able to demonstrate this?
A:Firstly, I have written a few new articles. I am listed as being the originator of Franco Enna, Salvator Gotta, Jenn Ashworth and Polygonum caespitosum. I rewrote the stub Polygonum caespitosum from scratch after it had been flagged as a copyvio. The others were completely new articles.
Secondly, I have written a few other articles which do not show up as having been created by me because there was already a stub or redirect. I will give a few examples. I have not kept a full list, so there may be others.
  1. Here is the article SuperB Experiment before I edited it, and here it is when I had edited it. All of the changes apart from two very minor edits were by me. I think it is fair to say that the article is effectively just as much my creation as if I had been listed as its creator.
  2. Another example of an article which I substantially rewrote is Near-field (mathematics). The version before my editing was not as minimal as in the case of SuperB Experiment, but it was fairly short and not, in my opinion, very well written, and the current version, though still quite short, contains significantly more information, and is substantially due to me, with several small contributions from other editors.
  3. World Peace (computer virus) started out as a redirect, but it was mistakenly redirected to an article on a different topic. I replaced the erroneous redirect with an article. HamburgerRadio then pointed out that there was already an article on the same virus under the title MacMag (computer virus), and suggested a merge. I merged much of the article I had written into MacMag (computer virus), and turned World Peace (computer virus) back into a redirect, but this time with the correct target. In the course of this I had the experience of writing an article, I experienced the disappointment of being told that my efforts were in vain as an article already existed, and I had the experience of examining the two articles together and deciding which bits of each to put together into the final merged article. I believe that all of these stages were significant contributions to understanding the process of article writing.
In all of the cases that I have mentioned I spent a significant amount of time and effort researching to find the necessary content, as well as writing the article.
There are other articles which I have edited from time to time in ways which may give evidence of the sort of experience you refer to, for example articles to which I have added material or to which I have made improvements, even if I have not been the main author of the articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Shadowjams
5. Could you comment on your opinion of WP:PROF?
A: I am confident that this question has been asked because another editor (DGG) a little while ago said that I disagreed with WP:PROF. In fact this was a misunderstanding of my position. In the past I used to think of notability almost purely in terms of the general notability guideline, and tended to think of the specific guidelines as minor additions. As a result of this I sometimes argued in AfD discussions largely on the basis of lack of the sort of coverage needed by WP:GNG, even where there were other reasons for considering a subject notable. DGG quite rightly criticised me for this, with the result that I have looked more carefully at the other notability guidelines (including WP:PROF), and I now realise that they deserve more weight than I previously gave them. As far as WP:PROF is specifically concerned, I think that it is a very good guideline, and studying it in greater depth than I had previously done has been very useful. It is fairly complex, but this is because the issues are complex, there are numerous methods that may be used to asses notability, and some of them are not entirely straghtforward, but have to be used with care: hence the various paragraphs starting with "A caution about..." and the section "Caveats". I never disagreed with the guideline, I simply didn't take enough notice of it in the past, but I have learnt, and I am grateful to DGG for drawing my attention to my mistake. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Doc Quintana
6. When should AGF be given towards new users that may seem like vandals?
A: That's a really difficult question to answer in the abstract, but it is actually reasonably common in practice. I have thought very hard about this, and I don't think it's possible to give a general rule about it: it is a question of judging each case on its merits. However, I remember a case of this which took place some time ago. A new editor removed a chunk of text from an article, with no explanation. This looked exactly like vandalism, and it was reverted and the user was warned. The editor then removed the text again, this time with an edit summary saying "This information is libel. My husband was there. This is a disgrace to those who served with him and made this award possible for him. This is complete crap. Leave it off." It was reverted again. I wrote a message on the user's talk page, in which I assumed good faith, and invited the user to justify the claim that the information was wrong. To cut a long story short, it turned out that the supposed sources were totally unreliable, and the new editor was quite right. In fact the information she was removing was very probably libellous. So the question is, why did I assume good faith when other editors simply reverted and warned? The editor seemed to genuinely believe that the information was "complete crap", and that being so I believed she should be invited to explain why, in case she was right. Of course sincere belief is often wrong, and "my husband was there" is not a reliable source, but if it looks as though the user is sincere, they should be given the opportunity to provide justification. If and when this opportunity has been given and the user has failed to respond positively it may be reasonable to consider taking a more negative line (though even then it does not follow automatically: each case needs to be considered on its own merits). In this particular case there was an additional reason for assuming good faith. There was a claim of libel, and I firmly believe that all claims of libel should be taken seriously unless they are obviously nonsense. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After I wrote that and went offline I realised I was making it more complicated than it needed to be. There is, in fact, a very simple general rule: If there is any reasonable doubt then assume good faith. I think the above example is, in fact, covered by that rule. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just one question from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? , who has supported, but just wants to be absolutely sure
7. You say you'd deal with the odd A7. A7 is the most commonly used, and therefore the most commonly misused criterion, so how would you handle this A7 nomination? What checks would you make and what action (if any at all) would you take regarding the article, the author and the tagger?
A: This is a complex one. The easiest thing to decide about it is that as the article stands it is most definitely not an A7, as the article asserts lots of significance. Presumably if this were a real article the "reference" at the bottom would point to something real, not just an example, and clearly it would be essential to check that. It is possible that that would clear the matter up by providing a good source for the information in the article. If not, then there is a definite BLP issue, as a named person is stated to be involved in serious crime. I would immediately remove that statement. In addition the organisation is said to be "suspected of attempting to organise terrorist attacks", but there is no attribution as to who suspects it, nor sourcing to support the claim. I would search briefly for sources for the other assertions. If the statements made, including "The Association hit the news in 2001" are valid then it shouldn't be hard to find at least some coverage. If no sources for the suspicion of crime were found then I would regard it as necessary to remove the potentially libellous statements about the organisation. This would leave us with "The Association of Patriots for the American Nation (not to be confused with the Association of American Patriots) is a white supremacist splinter group. It is currently believed to be dormant. The Associaton was founded in 1997 in Louisiana." which would not assert any significance, so strangely enough I would have justified the A7 tag which I initially said was invalid. If I had found acceptable sources about the organisation indicating significance then I would add references, and perhaps expand the article. If not then I should be highly suspicious of the article: it makes very explicit claims of considerable significance, and yet there is no evidence that the organisation has any significance at all. There is a case for avoiding biting the author (probably a new editor) by giving him/her more time to provide sources, and explaining the situation. If I had found even a few halfway adequate sources confirming at least the existence of the organisation I would go for this option. However, if I not, then, considering that the article made claims which if true would have almost certainly implied the existence of readily available sources, but I had failed to confirm even its existence, and considering also that the stub that is left does qualify for A7, so that another admin may well come along and speedily delete it anyway, I would be inclined to delete it. I would certainly post to the author's talk page explaining my reasons, and emphasising the need for reliable sources, particularly with contentious BLP material. I would also post to the talk page of the tagger, explaining that, although I have deleted the article, the tag was not really valid. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Nsk92
8. You participate in a fair number of AfDs. Do you remember any AfDs, say within the last 6 months, where you !voted "keep"?
A: Yes. Here are a few: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (disambiguation), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money as Debt (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Husein Alicajic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Hill (chemist). As well as some in which I was for "keep" all along, I have included some in which I started saying "delete", but was persuaded in the course of the discussion to change my !vote, because I have been described below as "stubborn and uncompromising" in AfD discussions.
I could probably find more examples if I searched, but those should be enough. Certainly the AfD discussions in which I !vote "keep" are a small minority of those in which I take part. However, I don't see any reason that that should cause any problem. One user has expressed concern that I might "rush to deletion" in my mop wielding. However, I don't think there is any danger of that, for two reasons. Firstly, I do not plan to take part in AfD closures, and secondly I am capable of recognising a consensus, even when I disagree with it. There are admins covering a wide range of opinions on the deletionist/inclusionist scale, and most of them are perfectly capable of exercising this role without allowing their personal views to get in the way of recognising consensus. I am confident I could do so too. However, as I have already said, I am not planning to close AfDs anyway. One of the reasons for this (though not the only one) is precisely that I have anticipated this problem: since I am well towards the deletionist end of the spectrum there is a danger that editors might see any "delete" decisions I might make as biased. I think any such fears would be groundless, but justice must be seen to be done as well as being done, and there is plenty of other admin work I could work on without touching AfDs. I once (only once as far as I remember) did a non-admin closure as "keep" on an AfD. Unfortunately I don't remember what the article was, or I would give a link to it. If similar circumstances arose I would like to think I could do the same, so I am reluctant to swear that I will never close an AfD under any circumstances. DGG asks for "an explicit reassurance" that I will not be closing controversial AfDs, "at least for quite a while". I am willing to give an undertaking not to close any AfDs at all for, say, six months, and not to close any as "delete" for a year. I have no plans to start closing any after that, but for the reason I have mentioned I would prefer not to tie my hands for ever. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One more thought relating to the above. Although I am well towards the deletionist end of the scale, I am not such an uncompromising deletionist as some posts below seem to suggest. Apart from the AfDs I have cited, there are, scattered through my edit history, quite a number of cases where I have attempted (often successfully) to save articles which might well have been deleted. I have already mentioned above a couple of articles which I rescued when they would probably otherwise have been deleted: SuperB Experiment and Polygonum caespitosum. Another example is the article Tommy Wind. This article was tagged for speedy deletion one minute after creation. I then stepped in and made a sequence of seven edits, including declining the speedy deletion and making various changes to make it less likely to be deleted. This included searching on the internet to find out what "award" he had received and whether it was significant (I decided it was), adding a reference, removing text which seemed promotional, and a few other minor changes. I then took part in a discussion with the author of the article, in which I put some effort into trying to help him to understand how to improve the article. This discussion started with a post I made at User talk:Threecheerslife, and its continuation can be seen in the first section of this talk page archive. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Note: I have removed the "support" !vote from Rohedin. This was an unconstructive editor, now indefinitely blocked, and I do not regard the "support" as a meaningful one. I decided that striking out of the !vote was not enough, and I prefer to remove it altogether. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]
  1. Beat-the-noms support. Seen him around doing good work. T. Canens (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support– No reservations whatsoever. James (the !James thing bugs me) is very conscientous about the way he deals with new users, and careful not to be condescending or rude. It's a skill that is well becoming of an admin. He's also very diligent in pretty much everything he applies himself to. Good luck. ((Sonia|ping|enlist)) 08:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I had been thinking of co-nominating !James, but in light of the two detailed statements by Peter and SoWhy I think a verbose support will do instead. Besides enthusiastically agreeing with the nominators' comments above, the one extra thing I'd like to mention is !James's thoroughness. There are a number of reasons people prefer admin candidates to have article-writing experience, of which perhaps the most common (and to my mind convincing) is that it makes them less likely to wade in with the tools with no appreciation for the "editors' eye view" of the situation. !James's article output is smaller than some - though by no means negligible - but I think any potential lack there is more than made up for by his thoughtfulness and thoroughness. A look through his talk page archives and some of the diffs above shows many conversations where he's gone beyond the call to patiently research a situation before explaining things to confused or abusive editors where many others would have simply dumped a few TLAs and moved on. I have no worries therefore that he'd be the sort of admin to drive off contributors or generate drama with ill-thought-out actions, and if you'll excuse a second run of boldface he gets my strong support. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oui. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - One of the best vandal fighters I know, and well-rounded in many areas, as noted. Indeed, the noms and JBW's answers say it all; I am proud to be among the first to help him to obtain the extra buttons that can make a big difference in blocking repeat vandals in a timely manner. My best wishes on this Rfa! Jusdafax 08:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Have come across James a number of times while paroling New Pages, and have no hesitation in supporting. Codf1977 (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Easy decision, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Have seen the quality contributions from this editor at WP:med and have often wondered why you weren't one already. Helpful, clueful, rational, trustworthy and very approachable. A wonderful choice and I'm sure will put the tools to good use Calmer Waters 09:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support However I would like to see the use of a fair use rationale template for WP:fair use images! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The whole issue of images on Wikipedia is the one where I currently feel I have most need to learn. I intend to work on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I've had a few discussions with JamesBWatson and have been very impressed with their thoughtful and well reasoned arguments on contentious issues. Regular at WP:AIV and WT:CSD. No hesitation in recommending that we make the mop cupboard JamesBWatson's new home. Elementary! TFOWR 10:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support for the purposes of those who count, even though for everyone else it should be pretty obvious without this... Peter 10:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  12. Support - despite the lousy co-nom statement just kidding of course... ^^ Regards SoWhy 10:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support a great choice for admin. —Soap— 10:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Aiken ♫ 11:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. There's ver little I can say: a very good admin candidate. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 12:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Great candidate who will make good use of the tools. I also am happy with his demeanor and how he interacts with other editors. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 12:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Of course I have seen good work from this candidate. Polargeo (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. That was one hell of a nomination. BLGM5 (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Trusted candidate. I was wondering when this nomination was going to come up. Obvious support anyway. Minimac (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Stephen 13:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Yes. Tiderolls 13:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Another candidate with clue. —DoRD (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Absolutely. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 13:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Obvious support - Will be an excellent admin. Shadowjams (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support – good admin material :) Airplaneman ✈ 13:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support -- JamesBWatson, besides being very helpful, is calm, unfailingly courteous, knowledgeable, and very thorough. He will be an extremely good admin. I know from experience that he is the person every disheartened and flailing editor hopes to encounter. Susfele (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Tommy2010 [message] 15:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I see no problems -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. An analysis of his edits indicate he will be a good admin.--PinkBull 15:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Seen him around, nothing negative. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support When someone is advertised as having a non-controversial userpage, you best believe I am going to be digging through it with a fine-toothed comb, but I just don't see any problems! Keepscases (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Certainly can be given the mop. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 17:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Seems like good people with a clear need for admin tools. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    regrettably changed to oppose, see below. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Good contributions. I don't anticipate any problems. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - can I support based on the terrific noms? Seriously, great answers, good work, can use the tools. No problems here. PrincessofLlyr royal court 17:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Great answers, has an impressive range of edits. Maybe he can rinse off the soap. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 18:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Good candidate. Connormah (talk | contribs) 18:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Verified for adminship per criteria. --OpenTheWindows, sir! 19:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Excellent candidate, good anti-vandalism work. Immunize (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I cannot find a reason not to.--White Shadows stood on the edge 19:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. I am delighted to know that such an excellent candidate actually wants the mop. Dr. Watson's attitude towards helping new editors is exemplary; he couples a thorough knowledge of policy with a helpful and polite attitude. He works hard here for all the right reasons and administrative tools will merely help him to continue that effort. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong Support Exceptional question answer. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    --Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Moved to oppose. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support no concerns here. Dwayne was here! ♫ 20:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I've seen his work quite a lot and wondered why he WASN'T an admin (and thought he ought to be drafted if that was possible...). Peridon (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, and about time, too! Shimeru 20:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I'm especially impressed by the answer to #6 (vandalism vs. AGF). We need as many admins (and regular editors) as we can get who have this level of insight and are willing to take the chance of being made a fool for the possibility that an apparent vandal might in fact have a valid point. Richwales (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Boy, you had me confused for the past year. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Nothing but good contributions in the Wikipedia namespace. Sound knowledge of policies and guidelines and drama free. Good answers to the questions and impressive nominations. ThemFromSpace 21:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - I also liked answer #6, and a good story too, good luck Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 22:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Good candidate. ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 23:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support trustworthy user. —fetch·comms 00:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. 'Support I think he has come to understand the deletion criteria, and I have no other objections. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support – Definitely a worthy candidate for the mop. Thought you were an admin already. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to Strong support after reading your answer to number 6. Great response. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - 10 minutes with Huggle will show that we can always use more anti-vandalism admins. No concerns at all.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 01:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Yes, despite his lack of a stupid signature.  7  02:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    His name's stupid enough. Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Trusty, plenty of experience. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Impressive contributor BejinhanTalk 04:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - An excellent response to Q6. Properly active for 12 months since May 2009 with monthly edits steadily on the increase. A good balance of participâtion in most areas. --Kudpung (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, an excellent candidate. --Taelus (Talk) 07:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, JamesBWatson. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - Exceptional in his dealings with new users, demonstrates intelligent understanding of policy. Support without reservation - Begoon (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Appreciate the the thorough answer to my question and that you recognise the importance of communicating in non-template fashion with newbies and new page patrollers. No reason to think you wouldn't be a fine admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I just encountered this editor at AIV and this willingness to reconsider their actions, re-evaluate a situation and admit mistakes is a very good thing to see in an admin, so I guess you can take this as a strong support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support A clueful candidate - no concerns. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 15:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Full support. - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - seems tedious and crappy to say so, but...... I THOUGHT YOU WERE ALREADY AN ADMIN!. Orphan Wiki 20:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - I have seen James around more then once, and i never had any reason to complain about him or his edits. I could write a longer rationale but in this case i will just state WP:IAR (Or rather - Ignore All Essays) in regards to WP:OBVIOUS - sometimes things should just be obvious on their own :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 23:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support.   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Courcelles (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. See no reason for concern. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Answers to the questions are satisfactory and user has a positive track record. Everything seems to be in order here. GlassCobra 05:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support AIV reports (which is where I've seen the candidate) have invariably been sound; other contributions look good. I trust this candidate with the mop. EyeSerenetalk 08:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - I'm not seeing anything wrong... must be something wrong with my contacts. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Deb (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support: On Q7, as the exemplar contains unsubstantiated claims of lawbreaking I suspect ((db-attackorg)) (G10) might apply, but since you arrived at the conclusion of deletion and everything else here looks good enough to outweigh any doubt there. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I see I didn't clearly address the issue of what grounds I would use for deletion. ((db-attackorg)) seems like a good one. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually what I was looking for, but you got the gist of the question. I don;t care how you choose to get rid of it, as long as you do! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support: without hesitation. I thought he already was a fellow admin. Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Nothing wrong here...Acather96 (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Good involvement in WP:AIV, WP:AN/I, WP:EAR & WP:UAA. Vipinhari || talk 16:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. I've seen you around, and those nominations are very impressive. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support TNXMan 19:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Hopefully he will do a good job...Modernist (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - Everything I have seen from him tells me he will be a net positive. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 22:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. SupportNo concerns, seems like a sound editor and knows his way around admin-type stuff already. Fences&Windows 02:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Moving to neutral. Fences&Windows 16:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Back to support, satisfied with JBW's reply. Fences&Windows 11:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 02:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support --Nascar1996 04:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - only positive interactions with the user. MLauba (Talk) 13:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support- What I've seen of this candidate is uniformly positive. Reyk YO! 19:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - Always happy to run into positive, familiar names at RfA. I do not believe I have ever dealt directly with JamesBWatson, but I have seen some of his work at AfD and have been impressed with his attitude, candor and aptitude. He is fair-minded, polite and puts in maximum effort where it is due. An easy support. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Looks good.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Will not abuse tools.--Banana (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support I'm not seeing anything wrong. --High Contrast (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Long time strong contributor. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 01:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Yes, surely. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 07:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Conditional support per heavy activity in the last 13 or so months alone. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Sometimes the most effective test of a man's character is to look at his opponents. In this case, one quick scan of the "oppose" section reassures me that he is being opposed by all the right people, for all the right reasons. Badger Drink (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Good user and editor, needs its tools. --Zalgo (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support wiooiw (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Good user and will not abuse the tools. Derild4921☼ 01:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. RfA isn't a perfection test. I'm impressed by the replies given to concerns. Of the current opposes, half of them can safely be ignored and while the comments regarding A7 use give me cause for pause I trust that the candidate has learned from previous mistakes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support – Pepper∙piggle 11:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Am confident he will take seriously the opposing points, and will do very well. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose In a number of AfDs I've encountered him he came across as stubborn and uncompromising. I cannot support such a person for the mop. Examples include Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ESET, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WinBuilder. I can probably dig out more with wikistalk, but these should give you an idea why I'm opposing. Pcap ping 16:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Seems too negative and unhelpful. For example, in this case, he proposes deletion of an article about a respectable system of taxonomy just 10 minutes after the article was created. The editor who created this article does not seem to have responded well to this brusque welcome and has edited little since. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness, it was eight months ago, but you bring up a good point. Are there any more recent diffs? Airplaneman ✈ 02:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate has been on Wikipedia for about 4 years. To sample his contributions, I picked a month between 6 months and year ago. More recent contributions seem unsuitable as a candidate running for admin is likely to be on their best behaviour. When I choose another month in the same range, I soon find another case of a similar sort. This is a scientific topic of great notability and utility in pollution control - entire books have been written about it. The candidate displays no intellectual curiosity about the topic nor assists the new editor in any way. Instead, he treats the topic and the new editor in a hostile and unhelpful way, threatening him with a block. This seems to be a failure of our principle of assuming good faith and my impression is that this is SOP for this candidate. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A flurry of edits by the candidate showed up on my watch list this morning. Now that I'm paying attention, a detail from his talk page attracted me so I looked closer and saw an unresolved complaint that the candidate used rollback improperly - see Misuse of rollback. I see no mention of this issue above and this seems a significant case of tool misuse. How is that supporters are saying things like " I see no problems" when there are recent incidents of this sort? Colonel Warden (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to have been a mistake, and I apologised. I accept that I might have been more forthcoming with my apology. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was initially a little put off by afds such as these, but I think he's been learning. I assume (and, actually, would like an explicit reassurance) that he will not be closing controversial afds, at least for quite a while. I see no harm in his using speedy to delete articles that clearly amount to vandalism, and I assume that here too he will be very cautious. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Following your comment, I looked nearer the present. I went for April but got the year wrong and skimmed the contributions for April 2009. This was interesting because it's as if he was different person back then - pottering with whimsical articles like Hemulen and removing an obnoxious banner tag from Cambridge Circus. I then dial forward to April of this year and find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future of mathematics. This was a major failure of WP:BEFORE as this is a substantial topic for which there are numerous good sources and about which much might be said. Instead of civil attempts at discussion of this worthy but challenging topic on the article's talk page, we had a procedural cudgelling with speedy, prod and then AFD. Unsurprisingly, the author of this article - another new editor - has not edited since this unpleasant treatment of his good faith initiative. So, my impression is that the candidate has been getting worse rather than better. Does he feel that becoming more obnoxious is the way to get ahead here or is it that Wikipedia has that effect upon us ...? Colonel Warden (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am genuinely surprised at Colonel Warden's reading of that AfD. I have re-read my contributions, and do not see them as "obnoxious", but of course other editors will be able to judge for themselves. I argued what I thought was right in what still looks to me like a civil manner, as did others, on both sides. I do not believe that it was a failure of WP:BEFORE, as I was perfectly aware of the sources, but did not feel they justified the article. The speedy deletion was nothing to do with me. I did place a prod, but immediately removed it as I realised it was invalid (date stamp is one minute later), and went for AfD instead. I don't know whether this seems to be "procedural cudgelling" to most editors or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The obnoxious usage was perhaps an echo of Futofma's reaction to the first attempt to delete that article. Checking the timing more closely, I see that your part in this came after a hiatus and so I agree that it was not especially heinous. The incident still seems too negative though. Anyway, what do you think of the article now? If you were assessing that CSD, rather than DGG, would you still press the delete button? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article came nowhere near to satisfying the criterion under which it was tagged ("no content"). Whether it should have been deleted for other reasons was much debated at the AfD discussion, and there was no consensus, but the CSD tagging was totally unreasonable. DGG was quite right to remove the tag, and I would do the same. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose In answer to Airplaneman, "Are there any more recent diffs?"; yes there are: I agree that he seems too negative and unhelpful. Other, very recent example (June 15th), to support this: In Tattoo - Mormonism, he deleted a scriptural reference to the New Testament (1 Cor 3:10-17), again just 10 minutes after the reference was added, arguing that "This "reference" is not a citation for the fact stated, viz. that the Mormons hold a particular belief". Neither is the New Testament a Mormon book, so should the reference to any non-Mormon books be deleted? The Mormons wouldn't be very happy about that. Or else, why measure with a double standard - allowing references to the New Testament in general, but no more specific reference? After all, quoting a certain scripture from the New Testament is merely comparable to mentioning a certain page from a quoted book. Conclusion: This edit has no added value at all; quite the contrary: It discourages enhancing existing articles with such things as more detailed references. MESJ (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note. Account created just earlier with first 3 edits (only edits as of this entry) to this RfA. Calmer Waters 10:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The "reference" that I removed was attached to the statement "They [Mormons] believe that the body is a sacred temple as preached in the New Testament". It therefore should have been a reference to a source which stated that Mormons held that belief: that is what a "reference" means. In fact it was a source which did not mention the Mormons at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This objection would mean that first, a reference must be given that Mormons adhere belief to the New Testament, and that only then a more detailed reference to the New Testament can be given. This reflects a rather 'scientific' approach to Wikipedia, which I do not believe to be the purpose of Wikipedia: The meaning of merely adding a scriptural reference will be clear enough for anybody interested in the religious backgrounds of this topic. MESJ (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be your interpretation of Wikipedia's purpose but WP:V clearly states that a reference must serve to verify the claims. The New Testament may serve to verify that the New Testament states something but it's not sufficient to verify that Mormons adhere to this belief. You seem to confuse the statement that the New Testament claims that the body is a holy temple (for which citing the text itself is sufficient) with the statement that Mormons adhere to this belief (for which citing the text of the New Testament is not sufficient). Here the statement in question was not whether the NT makes such a claim but rather whether Mormons follow it and thus the reference was insufficient to verify the statement in the text. Regards SoWhy 10:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Implicitly you suggest that the Mormons might not believe in the New Testament; not only is this beyond the scope of the topic of this article (Tattoos), but neither is it in accordance with what is said elsewhere on Wikipedia about Mormonism. Anyway, to suit you, I will add a very explicit statement on Mormons believing the Bible, using their own sources. Yet, I consider such accuracy exaggerated, and a discouragement for further contributions to Wikipedia. MESJ (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I have been watching this RfA for a while considering a neutral comment, but I am pushed to oppose by the diffs provided by Colonel Warden. I fear that the editor exhibits a too rigid response in some cases, sticking to rules rather than trying to improve the encyclopedia, which might include being helpful to new editors even when their contributions are not perfect. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. oppose for now at least. I can see that a large number of people I like and trust think you are great editor. However, CW raises a number of valid issues. I don't find the errors to be outrageous, but I do get the sense that you aren't following WP:BEFORE before applying a PROD. I'm also waiting for Q8 to to answered. Issue raised by MESJ doesn't concern me. Hobit (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick note that I've looked at the answers to Q8 and find them helpful. But decltype's comments (below) keep me in the opposed column. Hobit (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Doesn't seem to really understand csd criteria here [20], and I'm concerned that a lot of users - including admins - are playing fast and loose with these. And this prod [21], noted by Colonel Warden above, is just too deletionist even for my taste. I do really like the answer to question 6, though, and if you are sysopped, I encourage you to really respect the community's consensus embodied in the CSD criteria. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the prod mentioned was a mistake, and I would certainly not do that now. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the note. Yeah, I see DGG's comment just above, and that was back in the day. I'll retract my "too deletionist" comment. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. I am not happy with A7 tagging of Juice Lounge, a company with significant coverage in Times of India and The Indian Express (cited as links in the article), as little as a week ago.[22] Similarly, Taecyeon was in poor shape when JamesBWatson tagged it (three days ago), but clearly indicated the subject's significance nonetheless. Also, The Tower of Dudes from three days ago has at least one good reference (The Prague Post). Then there's John A. Wells and Comhar Dún Chaocháin Teo from nine days ago, both of which I believe did not qualify for speedy. I don't think it's unreasonable to take this very recent batch of A7 taggings as an indication of when he would use the delete button, and I have to oppose for this reason. I've otherwise only had positive interactions with JamesBWatson, and hope he will take this into consideration should he pass (which seems likely at this point). decltype (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the opposes above before decltype's gave me any cause for concern. Deletionism is good. But whether one is an inclusionist or deletionist, the CSD criteria (certainly in the A category) should be applied strictly. The examples above suggested to me that you might not just be taking a slightly looser approach with A7s, but a misguided approach. That caused me to look for some more recent examples and I found [23], [24] and [25]. I don't think on any reasonable interpretation of A7 were these speedy deletion candidates. I'm very sorry, but in light of these recent examples I'm not comfortable with you having the delete button. If this RFA passes, as seems very likely, please take this on board. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC) On further reflection , moving to neutral.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Reading through the edits posted by others, I have to agree with them. This person would not be a good administrator. Dream Focus 22:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Oppose per Colonel Warden. We don't need even more administrators who bite new editors, ultimately hurting wikipedia's long term viability. Because of a company culture which rewards and retains editors who have little respect for other editors good faith contributions, it looks like there is enough support that JamesBWatson will become an admin anyway. Okip 17:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]

#Moving to neutral until JamesBWatson provides a pledge that they will not rush to deletion and will abide by WP:BEFORE in their mop-wielding. Fences&Windows 16:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Back to support. I'm not normally so indecisive... Fences&Windows 11:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking WP:BEFORE is not directly related to adminship, as it takes place before nominating for deletion, which is not an admin task, but the spirit of it can apply to admin work. Several editors have suggested that I don't take enough notice of WP:BEFORE, and I take that on board, and shall think hard about it, and make sure in future I spend more time on it, whether or not I get the adminship. As for a pledge that I will not "rush to deletion", I have now given that above.JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, IMO, a lot of the steps also apply to the procedure an admin should be following before deletion, especially for prods, where there's often no obvious reason to delete quickly (as in speedies) and there's not been any community discussion (as in AfDs). Espresso Addict (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I accept that. That is the sort of thing I had in mind when I said "the spirit of it" can apply to admin work. Anyway, I stand by the undertaking I have given not to "rush to deletion". Because of the sort of concerns that have been expressed, if I do get the adminship I shall be very cautious about any deletion, and if I am in any doubt I shall either request a second admin's opinion or simply leave the page in question so that another admin can deal with it. I also think that the case of Tommy Wind, which I have described at the end of my answer to question 8, has some bearing on WP:BEFORE. I am prepared to consider seriously the criticisms that have been raised, and take more time over WP:BEFORE than I have in the past, but I do not think that I have been by any means totally ignoring it. I am certainly willing to give the requested pledge to abide by it. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Uncomfortable supporting, per my struck oppose above, but on reflection, opposing is a little over the top for me given the clear evidence on this page that the candidate lears from mistakes (see for example the conom of SoWhy who knows CSD issues well). --Mkativerata (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, on balance, this editor looks like they're of the "net positive" type, but I don't feel comfortable supporting given the concerns that Col. Warden brought up above. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  3. Neutral – I've been going back and forth on this, as I'm concerned about the article taggings that decltype identified, which did not qualify for speedy deletion in my view. Some are a bit on the edge, I acknowledge—but perhaps it shows that the candidate was not aware those taggings would be controversial (which itself would concern me), since they were made either during this RfA week or in the lead-up to it when admin candidates are typically being additionally careful. That said, I completely agree with Mkativerata above, as the candidate is very willing to accept feedback, so here I land in the neutral section. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category