Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jamesofur

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

Jamesofur

Final (84/18/7), closed as successful by The Rambling Man at 14:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Jamesofur (talk · contribs) – I am presenting Jamesofur to the community for consideration as an administrator on the English Wikipedia.

James' contributions to articles has been on the minor side, however he is a prolific worker on various WMF projects:

• Admin at the Simple English Wikipedia
• Global SysOp and Global Rollbacker (verify)
• CheckUser at Simple English Wikipedia
• Rollbacker at Commons, the Simple English Wiktionary, the Simple English Wikiquote, the Simple English Wikibooks and here on the English Wikipedia (verify)
• Accountcreator here on the English Wikipedia
• OTRS volunteer (in fact most of James' most recent contributions have been in this area)

On English Wikipedia, James is a coordinator for Wikipedia:Abuse response, though recently his role there has been more helping other people in the project rather than doing it himself, although he still deals with big cases.

I feel that James would benefit from admin tools here on the English Wikipedia - they will help with his OTRS and abuse work here, and I am sure that he will not misuse the tools - I would trust him with them without hesitation.

It is with pleasure that I present him to you for your consideration. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you Steve, I've thought about this for a very long time and I think I'm ready. I know I'm not the normal candidate, I do a ridiculously small amount of article work (not a single page created in the en main space) and do work across a wide spectrum of projects. While I may not trust myself with article work I love this project and the work of the Foundation and do whatever I can to make it better for both the readers and the editors who make it great. I do this wherever I can though I tend to focus on vandalism and spam related issues cross-wiki. I feel that having sysop here could help me and the community and would be able to lend my assistance with blocks and deletions (I am able to monitor AiV almost constantly on IRC) and my OTRS work much easier. I should also make sure that people know (for transparencies sake) that after thinking about it I did ask ArbCom to vet me for en CU. Obviously that's a long shot even if I get the nomination but this could obviously effect it and it wouldn't be fair not to make it known. James (T|C) 09:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: My biggest focus will be (as it is xwiki) with abuse and vandalism as well as with OTRS undeletions/deleted revisions. I used to try and leave tickets with deleted images or articles for local sysops but I've given up on that and resorted to repeated prodding on IRC to find someone to help me out. Fairly simple tickets sitting around for 14+ days is just ridiculous. I also am on IRC (and in CVN channels) constantly while doing work and will likely be fairly active on AIV, available for anyone who needs help on IRC and helping to work through backlogs a couple hours a week. I do anticipate working at SPI as well. While I don't clerk there my work as a CU at Simple Wikipedia and as a Global Sysop have me chasing vandals that often hit En as well and I already work with En CUs frequently on IRC and the checkuser-l mailing list as well as the rest of the SPI team on their IRC channel. I anticipate that the extent of my involvement will grow as I become someone able to do more work myself.James (T|C) 11:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think my best contributions have been relatively "wiki gnomeish". I don't do a lot of article work, I can't claim an FA or for that matter even a DYK but I do work wherever I find it whether it is little reference changes, removal of BLP violations, spelling mistakes or something more complex trying to support the project as a whole and those who are able to do the article work I respect so much. While more complex most of my other work is relatively "gnomish" with a focus on the abuse and vandalism that can disrupt the encyclopedia and the WMF projects in general. I've worked with Abuse Response quite a bit as one of the coordinators (and the only one remaining active) and even as I work in other areas have continued to assist and mentor the new project recruits we have now as they work to gather information on the abuse and contact ISPs. I also work on the OTRS permissions and copyright violation queues, on commons and here on En, verifying the permission (or lack of) given and making sure it gets updated on wiki (and bothering as many admins as possible in the process to make sure I get what I need :) ). My other big project on en is working to help trace and stop vandals and spammers, both those who attack just En and (even more often because of my other hats) those that go cross wiki. James (T|C) 11:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I can't think of any conflicts over editing (part of this has of course been my lack of article editing). I've had conflicts with vandals of course who were not happy about being blocked (I've had my fair share of emailed death threats but par for the course especially with long term sockers). While I've had disagreements over policy (the global sysops vote was a long one, or you can see me really rant about Steward Inactivity for an example) I don't think I've had anything that has really gotten to the point that you would consider a conflict. James (T|C) 11:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions from delirious & lost ☯

4. As someone who works with m:OTRS what is your opinion of the No Legal Threats policy (WP:NLT) and its application? How do feel about the less often cited counter-essay Don't overlook legal threats (WP:DOLT)?

A: WP:DOLT has it right. The NLT policy is good overall, it is impossible to have a good editing atmosphere with someone running around spitting angry and threating to sue everyone. That being said while some people may make threats for issues that we do not accept (some just want full control over everything on the web about them for example) the vast majority of them have legitimate concerns (usually BLP related) and it doesn't matter who is saying the problems or how they are saying it the article problems MUST be addressed. If you stay calm and fix the legitimate issues you are likely to stave off a block completely or at the very least need a much shorter one. Like any block an NLT block is meant to be preventative, not punishment, and if they see understanding from people and they see they are being listened too and the issues fixed they are very likely to calm down and no longer be a problem that warrants a block. James (T|C) 11:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

5. What do you think shows the best totality of your behaviour as an editor? borrowed from Tznkai [1]

A: Ahhk picking 1 thing to show what I do is NOT easy... Part of me would want to say my own essay. It explains alot of my feelings in general, why not try to do something and try to help out and allow people to try and help. I would probably say if you want to pick 1 article just to show how I operate you can pick a recent example at an Australian Idol article of all things. I went to the article because I got an email from someone trying to give permission for text to go on it (I'm still waiting for a response to a question which is why you don't see an edit regarding that yet) and when I read through it I found glaring (at least to me) BLP issues. That's tends to be how I end up operating, I work on the things that interest me such as OTRS or vandalism investigations (I absolutely love copyright law, and helping others, hence my work on permissions) but then when I come across something else for any reason I try to make sure it gets done. This doesn't always mean I do it myself (I constantly poke around for someone on IRC to help me out, especially if they are better at something then I am) but I'm not satisfied until it's fixed or at least on it's way to being fixed and in capable hands. James (T|C) 12:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional questions from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

6. Under what circumstances would you reverse an admin action other than your own and what other measures (if any) might you take to resolve the situation?

A: There are very very few cases that there is a gigantic time crunch to reverse a decision (I can't really think of any off the top of my head except for what is obviously an account going rogue and an imminent threat). Because of that my first response is basically always going to be to get a hold of the other admin. If they are on IRC I'd probably do it there (just to be more private about it) and if not a polite note on their talk page asking about it. I've found that the vast majority of admins will frequently end up with a "feel free to reverse it but I'm not" attitude if you explain the reason and then if you decide it's right you can do it (but take the heat if it ends up being wrong). On the occasions when they strongly believe differently then that tells me that I need to make sure I'M not wrong (obviously possible) and because of that it is better to get other admins thoughts. One thing that is important however is to stay in contact with any other users who are affected (the blocked user or article creator for example) so that they know you are listening to them (there are definitely users who have either left the project before they really started or gone feral and become a vandal/sock master almost solely because they felt ignored even help came later on). Because of the communication thing one of the few things I would do without waiting to long would be unblocking talk page access if I felt I needed to talk to the user. If the user abuses that access it gets revoked again but if they can promise to remain sane on it (and keep that promise) I don't think it unreasonable. James (T|C)12:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

7. How would you respond if you made an admin action that you were convinced was well grounded in policy (or perhaps, in your case, based on a complaint to OTRS) and that action was reversed by another administrator?

A: I do not consider undoing my SysOp actions as wheel warring. It is quite likely (i.e guaranteed) that I will have a statement to that effect on my talk page and I stand by it. I will of course want to know WHY and if I disagree I'll talk to them and bump it up to the community in whatever form is appropriate (AfD or AN/I for example) to display my own reasonings. Trying to go back and revert them without talking just invites drama with little plus side. If some of my information is private (OTRS for example) I'll say so but there are enough other agents that I do not think it will be incredibly hard to find a 2nd or 3rd opinion fairly quickly and if it is of critical importance will seek that out quickly. James (T|C) 12:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Blanchardb

8. As you are probably aware, the Simple English Wikipedia has policies that are slightly different than the ones here, yet there are situations where they would apply differently in one place than in another. For example, if I look at the Simple English "quick deletion" criteria, I see criterion A5, which is similar to our A2 here except for the fact it applies to all foreign-language articles, not just the ones that are copied from another Wikipedia. Given that you will probably be working in both Wikipedias simultaneously, is there a chance you might get the policies of the two Wikipedias mixed up? If so, how would you react when the error is pointed out to you?

A: Thanks for this one Blanchardb. In the end I don't think I will have enormous problems but part of that will be caution not skill. While I obviously am confident in my ability to see pure vandalism, nonsense or attack pages if I'm not certain of a deletion policy I look at it again and tend to err on the side of checking it again if I have ANY question. I already have both deletion policies bookmarked for just this reason (I still have to remind myself G5 doesn't exist on simple). It is of course a possibility that I will make a mistake and while I feel I usually catch mistakes quickly after I make them (would be nice if I caught it BEFORE wouldn't it) I do hope people will be able to point them out. I never have an issue with someone pointing out a mistake (or correcting it for that matter) whether it is a deletion or my grammar. James (T|C) 20:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky Caldron

9. Looking at the contributions for this IP, User_talk:212.219.49.2, if I had reported it to WP:AIV 30 after the last edit, what action would you take and why? Leaky Caldron 14:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A: Since you asked after it occurred I'm assuming you mean you reported it after the 10:20 UTC edit that the ip removed, though the response wouldn't be radically different if you had reported after your set of rollbacks around 0855 (except that the softblock mentioned below would have occurred after the 1020 edit). I would have stalled/closed the report as not done at that time because of a lack of warnings ( {{AIV|ns}}) and given both a final/only warning (mostly to show the bots/hugglers) and a long hand note explaining that the long term block that expired at the start of the month would be reinstated if they continued to vandalize. If the vandalism continued later in the day then the softblock (the ip is registered to an academic building for the college) would be put on (probably 6 months) given the likely hood of reabuse. To be honest I'd also leave you a note asking that you try to remember to warn the user. I think it is quite reasonable to jump multiple levels after you find him vandalizing 3 articles like you did and leave him a level 3 or 4im warning but I do think it is important to give that one last chance that he gets with a note (though of course there are exceptions for extreme vandalism). James (T|C) 15:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Jamesofur: Jamesofur (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Jamesofur can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jamesofur before commenting.

Discussion

• Stats have been placed on talk page -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Basic Cross-Wiki stats have been placed on the talk page. I will do more indepth analysis later today, hopefully. Out of the 9075 edits which James has made cross-wiki, 45% of them are to the English Wikipedia, 23% to the Simple English Wikipedia and 14% at meta wiki -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OTRS/Restore question

I just wanted to explain my reasoning for the recent OTRS/restore request brought up in the Oppose section. While I will be the first to admit that the decision is not easy in my mind it is a decision I stand by and feel makes sense for the project (though if in the end it appears the consensus is different then I'm happy to reconsider). There is often the issue when we receive text permissions (images basically never have the issue to be honest) that the text as it stands doesn't really belong there anyway. I do think that the text can often be used as a starting point for both the editor submitting it and other editors if the article belongs on the project at all. While in many ways I would like to say I don't make judgments on notability etc when I am verifying permission it is obviously hard not to if you've been around the project for any length of time.

My biggest concern however (and the reason I tend to like to restore even when the text isn't perfect) is that we are fair to everyone involved. One of those things is that if the article was deleted for copyvio (the only reason I will restore it, if the deletion log says something about Notability or something instead of copyvio I almost never do and just notify the user that the copyright violation was not the major concern) then it appears to anyone involved (especially non-admins and especially users not as schooled in our ways) that that was the only reason for deletion. If the real problem with the article is notability for example then we need to say that. If the log currently says copyright violation and we get permission I feel it is only fair to the user and to other editors (who could come across a page they are looking for and understandably think they SHOULD create a page "because it was only deleted because of a copyright violation") to make sure that the log gets fixed.

There have been multiple cases (this being one of them) where to be honest my personal best case scenario would have been to restore and immediately delete with the new reason and then email the user explaining why. I have brought that up with multiple other admins who were helping me out during those cases, including Snowolf. So far people have been hesitant to do this which is obviously their right since their name gets attached to the log actions (and to be honest has had me wondering if they felt it would be against policy). Absent that best case scenario I felt the right thing to do was to restore it (and tag it since it is no longer a copyvio) and allow the wiki process to occur on wiki instead of by myself on OTRS. James (T|C) 05:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
2. Tim Song (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
3. Support - fantastic contributor to many Wikimedia projects. James easily has the knowledge to perform en.wiki admin tasks and I can see they would be extremely beneficial in undertaking OTRS actions. A great candidate. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
4. Hell yes. Has sufficient clue and has done a great job with sysop tools in various wikis. Dammit, I hate edit conflicts. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
5. Definitely. BigDom 10:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
6. Obvious. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
7. Support per nom.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 10:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
8. Even with the admin highlighter installed, this is 100% true. I thought you were an admin... (X! · talk)  · @485  ·  10:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
9. Aye. No-brainer. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
10. Seems fine by me. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
11. Despite his colorful activities on 'other' wikis, I'll still support .. hey it's your business! ;D -- œ^™ 10:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

    And who are you to talk? Jafeluv (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

    That link is awesome, Javeluv, I'm going to have to store that away to use in the future for someone. -- Atama頭 17:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

    Perfect blackmail material, aye? ;) —Dark 08:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

    The only question is what OE was looking for when he found the site... Javeluv (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

    Oh no you don't! You can't turn this around on me! -- œ^™ 14:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

12. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
13. Support Clearly very experienced in behind-the-scenes work, in areas where we really need it. Not bothered by lack of article creation - the "You can't understand the admin job unless you create lots of articles yourself" argument has always seemed obviously false to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
14. A great editor for sure. I was a tiny bit concerned with your answer to 4, but I trust you have the sense to block only when necessary. If you do end up blocking someone for legal threats when they feel that an article about them is bad, remember that writing variants of {{blocked subject}} is an appropriate way to start communication. NW (Talk) 11:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

    Aye I agree, perhaps I should look over it again because that doesn't sound like what I wanted to say lol. My main thinking is that by talking to them and responding to the legitimate problems (which they usually are) you can usually avoid a block completely and if you end up making one it will end up being much shorter. Just blocking at the start can easily just make things worse and make them angrier for no reason at all. James (T|C) 11:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

    Yep, I agree completely with that approach. In my day job I work on a commercial web site with a large online community, and from time to time we get angry threats of legal action over some community-added content (sometimes actually via lawyers). But just showing willingness to listen and take their concerns seriously almost always disarms them and turns it into a civil and friendly discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

15. Support - Not the most active of editors on en-wiki, but certainly does enough to put sysop tools to use. Given the substantial level of privileges he's been demonstrably trusted with elsewhere in the WMF projects, I struggle to think of any downside to giving him adminship here too - he's been around enough to know our local policies. ~ mazca ^talk 12:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
16. Support No issues here. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 13:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
17. Strong support Already privileged as Checkuser on a sister project, and has shown nothing to cause any concern at all here. More admins are very welcome. Aiken ♫ 13:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
18. Support Trusted user across multiple projects. Chance of inverting and becoming a damaging influence to this project? Zero. So what if he "only" has 3000 edits? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
19. Support Whilst I usually have concerns over editors with so little content contribution, in this specific inst I believe that the candidate has amply demonstrated their ability to consider policies and guidelines with care - I trust their judgement, and their cross-wiki contribs show a considerable amount of common sense, a rare commodity indeed. Coupled with their knowledge of legal matters, I see this as a definite benefit to the project. They wrote, "I absolutely love copyright law, and helping others" - I find the former mind-boggling, but extremely valuable, and I can vouch for the latter from their work in account creation. I trust the candidate, in particular his open attitudes, knowing when to be bold, and knowing when to ask people with more experience in specific areas - so indeed, why not?  Chzz  ►  13:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
20. Support par reaction to my comment \ question in the neutral section. No doubt that James will use the tools correctly, and his answer reflect a clear need for them as well. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
21. Support James is a very experienced and trustworthy contributor. I have no doubt that he would use the tools wisely, as he has elsewhere. Rje (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
22. Support I have the opportunity to work with James on OTRS and on the wider wikimedia scale, and I think his becoming a sysop would be a benefit to the project. In my experience, he has the temperament to deal with the pressures of being an admin and the integrity not to abuse the tools. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
23. meets User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA. OTRS and admin elsewhere's offset low recent edit count. In fact, focus will be on OTRS. Dlohcierekim 13:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

    Adminship is about whether we can trust the candidate to benefit the project by using the tools. Clearly that's the case here. Dlohcierekim 14:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

24. Support – a very helpful and knowledgeable user elsewhere, so why not here. – B.hotep •talk• 13:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
25. Support - credible. Nifky^{^} 13:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
26. Was going to sit this one out because I know some will oppose on principles of what might be called fairness or consistency of standards, and I don't want to take a position on that general issue, but it seems to me that there's zero chance that this particular candidate will go off the rails. Enthusiastic support. - Dank (push to talk) 14:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

    Wow. Well said. Dlohcierekim 14:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

27. Support May not meet my typical criteria for RFAs, but I have no reason to believe this candidate will misuse the tools, for fairly obvious reasons. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
28. Will candidate break en.wikipedia with extra bits? Clearly No. Will candidate use extra bits to help en.wikipedia? Clearly Yes. Pedro :  Chat  15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
29. Good dude, will make a good admin. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
30. Support Definitely. Already has global sysop anyhow.  fetchcomms☛ 15:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
31. Just to note that the global sysop proposal that passed is not as far-reaching as the one that was originally proposed; if my understanding is correct, a global sysop account means nothing on most wikis with more than 10 active administrators, so he doesn't have any special admin-related rights here or on any other of the thirty or so biggest WMF wikis. However that doesn't mean it's an easy position to get or to retain, and I think that the combination of his work on other wikis and the work he's done here is enough to convince me he's ready for the job. —Soap— 16:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

    My understanding is that wikipedias can "opt out" from global sysop rights - for example, the larger wikipedias with sufficient admins will do so. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

    Indeed, and wikis with >10 administrators will automatically be opted out. NW (Talk) 19:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

32. Pedro compressed my thoughts perfectly (except he used the shift key twice too much). Jafeluv (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
33. Support No reason to oppose. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
34. Support Trusted. <debate/> I don't see how 3500 edits over three years can be considered as marginal involvement. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
35. Support overall appears to be a well qualified candidate and I see no reason to think he might miuse the tools. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 17:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

    Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

    Vote by sockpuppet indented. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

36. Support - I feel that I can trust this person. While I weigh experience in other areas of Wikimedia less than experience here (because en.wikipedia has rules and a culture that is unique, as each wiki does) it does count for something. I'm supporting for much the same reason Soap is. -- Atama頭 17:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
37. Support. Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
38. Support Obviously trustworthy, the oppose rationales are utterly unconvincing. This is about if the candidate can be trusted no to abuse the tools, and I see no indication ha couldn't be, he's already used the checkuser tool on another project, something even most admins here don't have access to. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
39. Support CU at Simple, sysop at Meta, global sysop. No harm in giving him some extra buttons here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
40. Strong Support Willking1979 (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
41. Support Clue'o'Meter gives a high reading. Unomi (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
42. Support — no concerns here. Airplaneman ✈ 20:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
43. Support, kind, approachable user who has sufficient technical knowhow to do the job.  f o x  20:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
44. Support, definitely. Blurpeace 20:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
45. (Hey, I wanted a nom!) Trusted with adminship at over 500 Wikimedia projects or so, can be trusted with the bit here as well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
46. Support Sole Soul (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
47. Support Sure. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
48. Support - Seems trustworthy. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 01:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
49. Heck yeah. Will use the tools (very well might I add), won't break the wiki. Isn't that what the mop's about? SS✞^(Kay) 01:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
50.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Jamesofur. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
51. Support. I'm confident he will make an effective admin here. PeterSymonds (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
52. —Dark 08:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
53. Support - Jamesofur is a very well-rounded person with the WMF. I don't suffer from Editcountitis, and it's no big deal, so why the hell not? He's spread himself multiple places and is an asset here and abroad. ^Avicenna_sis @ 09:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
54. Strong Support I've known Jamesofur through ACC and IRC. I strongly believe that he is knowledgeable with the different aspects in Wikipedia. BejinhanTalk 10:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
55. Support Trusted editor in a variety of WM project roles, already knows the buttons, and sysop here will help his OTRS work, which in turn helps this project. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
56. I see no pressing reason why Jamesofur, who is a global administrator, should not be trusted to do maintenance work here. Master&Expert (Talk) 13:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
57. Support James who will clearly benefit from the tools -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
58. Support Had contact with the user, meets my requirement. --Pgallert (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
59. Support. Hooray for editcount-itis. BLGM5 (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
60. It's a matter of trust, and I trust this user. Keegan (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
61. Strong Support I know there'll be opposition and questions about whether he has credible experience on the English Wikipedia. He's perfectly alright for my standards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 20:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
62. Support: Can be fairly confident he won't abuse his tools. Seems to be happy to help out. Cross fertilization between Wikimedia projects is to be welcomed - it works at the top, so why not down here too? Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
63. Absolutely support. I'm struggling to work out why we aren't leaping more enthusiastically at the chance to gain an admin who loves to work in some of the most needed admin areas. I see no evidence that James will do anything to harm the project, and plenty that will help. Peter 21:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
64. Support A RFA I am happy to see. One of the better candidates to have rolled into RFA in a while (imho). I trust James fully with the admin tools.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 04:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
65. Strong Support I fully trust James to use the the tools wisely here. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 05:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
66. Support will not abuse the tools and has a clue. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
67. Support I don't think he'll break anything. AniMate 20:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
68. Strong Support i have worked with Jamesofur before and he's very helpful and i think he would be a great admin. Dwayne was here! ^talk 08:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
69. Support Strong; thoughtful Shanata (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
70. Support Has a clue, has a need. Why not? VernoWhitney (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
71. Support: Great Candidate. The opposes below have been weighed measured and found wanting. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

    Meaning you aren't convinced by the opposes, or do you think they can all be ignored because someone responded to all of them? I would highly caution you not to assume they're all a case of "editcountitis". --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

72. Support-Read through a couple of the opposes and don't really understand much of the logic for them, He's been a great asset to other projects including this one and I have no reason to believe he would abuse the tools.--SKATER ^Speak. 13:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
73. Support As he's already trusted enough to be an admin on the Simple English Wikipedia, I believe he can be trusted to use the tools here too. Minimac (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
74. Support - close enough for me. Bearian (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
75. Weak support - very, very light on edits to mainspace; however, his commitment to the project, current status as a global administrator and body of work as a vandal-fighter has tipped the scales in his favor.--Hokeman (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
76. Support - Committed and will benefit from the additional tools. --CapitalR (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
77. Support - He does a really good work as a sysop and cu on simple. Always a kind user. No reason to not support him. Barras ^talk 11:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
78. Support based on positive interactions on other projects. No reason to believe he'd misuse the sysop tools. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
79. A great candidate. The claims that he doesn't have experience are not really backed by solid evidence, since he has experience with several other large projects and obviously did a good job there. ceranthor 01:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

    My opinion is given in light of the "other large project" experience insofar as English language projects that share the same subtle values are concerned. Indeed, if we are going to nitpick nominations for vandalism or CSD patrols, we ought to at the least assume they are qualified on this encyclopedia. My reason for opposing below addresses those concerns. Shadowjams (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

80. Support. Read the answers to the questions; this guy has clue and will do just fine with the mop. Tan | 39 16:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
81. Support - While the opposers have raised some valid concerns about participation here, the experience elsewhere tips the scale for me. It's simple: this is an editor the community can trust will use the admin tools to further the project. I predict he will be an excellent addition the ranks of mop-holders. Jusdafax 19:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
82. With all due respect to Snowolf's comments below, I don't see this as a showstopper. Good worker and won't break the wiki. Per the users draft essay at User:Jamesofur/whynot I don't have any concern about the user wanting just another hat.  7  04:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
83. Aye James wants to help in those really unseen, thankless corners. If he can restore & re-delete an article under correct reason per an OTRS ticket then if it really is a waste of time (which i think not) it is his time wasted. I appreciate his answers to my questions. I can appreciate the decreased activity as he finishes his degree in a few weeks; he is dotting other "i's" right now. A credible candidacy for steward and global sysop in the mean time shows the high and widespread level of trust he has earned. James' experience as a CU on SimpleWP can only be of greater aide to this project with his being a sysop here too. He did hear from me in private about the lack of any article creation. I appreciate his integrity to not go create some random stub just to make the 0 into a 1. :D delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
84. Support per the above. Seems to have a high level of reasonableness, which is always useful in an admin. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - While I have no doubt that are responsible, you don't have nearly enough involvement here for me to justify giving you the tools. You are definitely a valued member of the project at large, but from your record I don't see a solid interest in building the English Wikipedia. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   He has over 3000 edits here in a varied number of tasks. Please tell me the RfA standards haven't changed so drastically over the years. Look at the quality of his edits across many Wikimedia projects (including a substantial effort on this encyclopedia) - I honestly don't follow this oppose reason at all. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Ryan, they obviously have risen drastically otherwise we wouldn't have so many opposes. Aiken ♫ 13:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   When I first started participating in RFA (Spring 2006), I adopted 3,000/3 months. Some saw this as too high. Certainly I opposed a candidate who was actually ready at the time, but I was into "setting high standards." Since that time, I've seen opposes for "< a year." People have made arguments for 6,000/6months based on the expansion of the admin role since Spring 2006. I still hold with 3,000/3 and advice waiting till 6,000/6. One cannot apply litmus tests, however. Some editors with >20,000 edits will never have a clue, others with < 3,000 are quite clueful. I look for indications in the candidates edits and talkpages. My RFA subpage has more info that some may find interesting. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Struck rambling Dlohcierekim 18:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   In short, edit counting is a poor way to evaluate a candidate. Aiken ♫ 14:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   When James and I were discussing this before we started the RfA, he was aware that this may be raised as an objection. While I obviously disagree with it, Kraftlos is certainly entitled to this opinion. May I suggest that no further discussion of this oppose is required (or future oppositions using the same reasoning)? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Its funny how people assume that I was only referring to edit count. When I say record, I mean just that: their history with Wikipedia. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose lack of contribution to the English Wikipedia. lack of content contributions. While I appreciate this user has contributed substantially to other Wikipedias, they only have 424 edits here in the last 6 months, of which only 97 are to the mainspace. Most of this users edits were using Twinkle to revert vandalism in August 2009. -Atmoz (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Quick question. I have less than 500 edits in the last year. Should I resign as an admin? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   I don't care. But contributions to the encyclopedia are why we should be here. Collecting hats is not. -Atmoz (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Maybe you should, Pascal.Tesson :) Afterall, your lack of edits means that you're just not trustworthy enough. Now, if you had 501 or more edits, it would be a different story, but since you failed to meet this arbitrary criteria, you simply must resign! :-) Aiken ♫ 16:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   I've never commented at RFA or anything similar before, but I was moved just to comment on this wonderful reduction of arbitrary criterion application to the absurdum it truly is. Well done. Begoon (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   With a grand total of 9 edits, one wonders how you found this page. In any case, I didn't apply any arbitrary limit. Upon evaluation of the applicants contributions, I could have found that 97 edits was enough to write 97 featured articles. I didn't. I expect admins to show some ability to write an encyclopedia. And if they can't, or won't, then I don't trust them to be an admin. -Atmoz (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   I don't really blame you for wondering - however, the answer is yes, I have a grand total of 9 edits. Please explain how that makes my opinion invalid, or even, failing that, less valid than yours. As to how I found this page - well it's a high profile page, and I was interested in how this wikipedia stuff works. You can assume I have some kind of motive, or you can take my remarks at face value. I can't see any reason to care what you think after such an uncivil reaction to the first attempt of a new user to involve himself. Jim.... Begoon (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Ironically, I've just deleted four talk archive pages that Atmoz tagged as WP:CSD#G7. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Ironically, they weren't tagged as G7. They were tagged U1. Do either of those criteria actually apply to the pages you deleted? Or should they have been taken to MfD? -Atmoz (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   First, it takes no edits to read Wikipedia and find yourself here, create an account, and then comment as edit № 1. Having 9 or now 15 edits and making a comment is completely ok. Second, as user talk pages are not eligible for CSD U1, should the archive of a user talk page be eligible? I think not. Deleting a talk page outside of a m:Right to vanish or for attack edits is typically a controversial delete which is why they belong at miscellany for deletion. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Actually, if the archives were created by cut and paste, they can be speedied because the previous content is still viewable in the history of the original talk page. Only those created by page move should not be deleted- officially via MfD but in practice it's been done for WP:RTV requests in the past. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   I didn't look regarding c&p or move in this instance before making my preceding comment. My bad. As this is a c&p the deletion could be done via CSDU1 as it honours the spirit of the criteria. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 23:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   For these very same reasons (it was cut and paste), the pages meet the spirit of G7 since they were created by MiszaBot at Atmoz' request. More fundamentally, they qualify as obviously uncontroversial under the freaking common sense criterion. Adminship is not rocket science, a fact too many either forget, never realized or choose to ignore. But I digress... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose Evidently does an admirable job at the other places but there's not enough been done, in either quantity (especially lately) or quality (especially content), to take a mop here. But I hope he sticks around and gets stuck in. Plutonium27 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose Lack of involvement at the English wikipedia. Does surely a good job at other projects, but I would prefer someone with a heavier involvement at en wiki. Pantherskin (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   You might prefer someone with a heavier involvement here but this is not an election where we are asked to choose one candidate over the others. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   I don't understand where this comment was going. We choose yes or no (or neutral). If we choose no, we obviously have a good idea who we would say yes to. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

5. Oppose. User's lack of involvement on the English Wikipedia, also, my only interaction with the user has left doubt in me as his suitability for adminship. He asked me to undelete, among other things, an article, Stand and Deliver Records, for which text he got permission for thru OTRS. It worries me that said article was clearly fitting A7 and G11 criterias, he had reviewed the article text, still asked for the undeletion. (I undeleted and then asked other users to confirm my own opinion that it was fitting said criterias, Prodego deleted it right away) I'm sure he's an excellent OTRS agent, but as this example shows, I am not confident enough in his judgment on CSD criterias. I'm sure he's an excellent user and very good admins on other projects, but not sure he's familiar enough with our policies. Also, concerns about too many hats. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Do you have anything other than this isolated,single incident? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

   You say it's isolated, I hope it is, but one incident for a user that's hardly active is not really that low. That was my only interaction with the user, but the two other concerns that I voiced and that have been expanded below still make me uncomfortable even without the incident. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

6. Regretfully, per Snowolf. m:Katerenka (d) 22:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC) If anyone feels the need to direct a comment towards me regarding this, you'll be met with a quicker response if you leave your note here.
7. Oppose - Absolutely not enough experience here. I could easily support if there was some more content editing (and this is not something I generally oppose on). There are only 1,382 non automated edits and only 9 months with over 3 edits (5 with more than 100). Some of those are manually warnings. I don't know the number of mainspace edits that weren't automated or rollbacks, but it's obviously lower than that 1,382 number. This is just after we came off of another candidate who had a tremendous number of edits both automated and not, but was opposed for the percentage of automated edits. To be clear: I have no problem with automated edits (I have a lot of them), but I think it's appropriate to discount them somewhat (maybe 50%?). Even if we didn't discount them in this case at all, combine that with S Marshall's very valid concern that there's 0 page creation, I'm stunned at the arbitrary fashion that the "automated edits" or "not enough experience" claims get thrown at editors. I think this could be a successful admin run with more experience but there's just not enough activity to support. I'd be fine supporting a strong content editor with 3,000 edits, but not a vandal patroller with that few who's only been truly active for 9 months (and that's being generous about what's "active" for admin purposes.) Even including edits to simple wiki, by my count there are about 2,001 edits at Simple Wiki (no edit counter; looking at 500 x 4 + 1 edit pages), many of them with TW too. Shadowjams (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
8. per Snowolf. I look forward to reconsidering this candidate after further experience. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose, regretfully, per Snowolf because I can vouch for what he said above. Some more work on content and some more good understanding of how deletions work (especially speedy deletions, and I'd be happy to support in the future. –MuZemike 16:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Shadowjams. The mop is about trust. While it is nice he is trust on other parts of the project, I need to see more from him here to judge whether I trust him. Just not enough edits, too few of them to mainspace.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Snowolf. I don't object to giving admin powers to OTRS and other cross-project people engaged in administrative work, but only if they have good knowledge of the areas where they plan to use those powers. Ray^Talk 21:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Snowolf. "My personal best case scenario would have been to restore and immediately delete with the new reason and then email the user explaining why." WP:NOT a means of promotion nor is it a a bureaucracy. The best case is not a waste of everyone's time. Hipocrite (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose. This seem like another sham RFA for the foundation to hand over the bit to someone they like. The should do it directly. Pcap ping 12:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

    Would you be so kind as to expand your reasoning a bit? Because I really don't quite follow, User:Jamesofur has been nominated by an enwiki editor and admin, who I believe is unaffiliated with the Board or the Staff of the WMF. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

    I would just ignore that remark, I'm sure the closing 'crat will do the same. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

14. Weak oppose per Snowolf. Although I do realize that OTRS is not concerned with speedy deletion criteria other than G12, any editor there who is aware of the speedy deletion criteria should not be asking other departments to do jobs that are clearly pointless. At WP:PNT, we do not hesitate to tag candidate pages for speedy deletion when it is blatantly clear that they would never survive after the translation is complete. (Sometimes others beat us to the punch.) Also, we never tag a page for speedy A2 when it is apparent that the creator intends to do the translation by himself. Informing the OTRS requester that the contribution will probably be deleted anyway over other concerns should have been the proper procedure here. To his credit, per the reply to my question above, the candidate seems to be willing to learn from past mistakes and willing to adapt to a different environment. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
15. Oppose Too inexperienced. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Colonel Warden. Immunize (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

    (To Both Colonel Warden and Immunize) Too inexperienced? He registered an account back in 2006. Minimac (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

    However, this user did not actually become active until the middle of last year. He made no edits between the months of 2007/12 and 2009/06 . Although I feel that this user could later become a good admin, he needs further experience. Immunize (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

17. Oppose Commitement to project last few months low, auto edit to high, only one redirect created, few RFA comments. Queazy about policy issues. (see User:MWOAP/RfA Voting) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
18. Oppose - per Snowolf. Décembër21st2012Freâk ^Talk at 02:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Looks okay, and I'm not one of the "must have written audited content" crowd, but I can't bring myself to support someone who's never created a mainspace page.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral for now First and foremost i do not doubt your contributions to the project as a whole, as they are quite impressive. I especially like your resemblance to a swiss army knife when it comes to working in different sections and your privileges on other projects demonstrate your a highly capable editor who can be trusted with the extra bit. In other words: I have no doubt whatsoever that you can be trusted.

   However, i'm currently neutral as it would seem that you haven't been editing the English wikipedia until 2009/08 (Save for 10 edits made over the course of 2.5 years). It would seem that a total of 3,551 were made on this wiki, with 2,232 of these edits are made in august 09 alone. Most of the recent months show just around 100 edits, with a majority of your edits being automated vandalism patrol (I never oppose someone on the basis of automated edits, but 3k vandalism patrol edits is relatively low when taken into perspective).

   Seeing the amount of edits on this wiki every month here i would ask: How many times would you require / use administrative privileges every month on this particular wiki, and is this amount of such a magnitude that this couldn't be handled trough regular channels? Edit count doesn't reflect IRC activity or deleted contributions so i presume i may be basing myself upon a fairly irrelevant number in this case. Even so i would like some confirmation that i am; And i assume that other editors might be asking the same "Editcount" question :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   I wouldn't say they are irrelevant numbers you are basing it on and I can't say for sure but I do have a feeling that my use would be fairly extensive and quickly. It would definitely make things alot easier and quicker, at least half if not more of the "Permission Received" and similar more recent edits have included page or file restores which required me to try and find someone on IRC to help with (which can either be very quick, or take hours). It would also allow me to check what I'm asking to be restored more easily, a week or two ago I had a ticket that gave permission for something entirely different then what was on the page they mentioned and since then I've had to have sysops explain or pastebin the deleted edits for me to look at which obviously took even more time (and I swear is one of the reasons people don't respond as quickly ;) )

   The other thing is IRC as you mentioned. I am basically on IRC 24/7. Obviously some of that time I'm afk at class/meetings/work but basically all my time in my room whether studying/watching tv/reading or whatnot is spent at my computer even if I'm not actively editing Wikipedia. I already do this both so that I can watch the cvn channels and be pinged if someone needs me and it is an easy matter to have my computer ping when an AiV report comes in which is probably exactly what I'll set up. While I obviously do a lot of work on other wikis the phrase "all roads lead to Rome" fits here really well, almost all roads really do lead to or through En and so I end up looking here for SOMETHING almost regardless of what I'm doing whether it's a CU investigation or my senior papers. :) Oh, and just a note on the automated edits (huggle) and the obvious one month jump in edits from that. I stopped using Huggle mostly because I felt the templates didn't really do it for me (wanted to be a bit more personal) it was also about the same time that I branched out more to projects that seemed to be less served which is why it led to an immediate drop here :). James (T|C) 12:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

   Excellent response, and i can sympathize with he fact that most of the OTRS work will lead back to the English Wikipedia due to its popularity. I think you addressed my only concern ("A real need for the tools") most adequately, thus i will travel up a few lines, towards the support area :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Neutral Well, I really don't like the fact that Jamesofur's had less than five thousand edits, it's good to see an user with rollback stopping vandals and never being blocked. But the edit count just doesn't meet my edit count requirement (five thousand), sorry. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
   • Although it is fully your right to be neutral on these grounds, 5000 edits seems a bit arbitrary. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 03:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
     • Those of us who use edit count as a tool in RfA set it at a point where we feel an editor should have enough experience to do the job. This might seem "arbitrary" but really there's no formula that's going to give us a magic number. Of course a thorough RfA vote should involve investigated the actual work done and use edit count in conjunction with other pertinent facts. We shouldn't be labeled with "editcountitis" simply because we list the edit count as a fact demonstrating lack of experience, you don't know that there aren't other criteria; it could just be shorthand. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral - I commend the candidate for his work across multiple wikis, and he seems to being doing good work so far here on the English Wikipedia. I personally don't believe a specific number of edits is necessary for adminship, but I do look at the sum total of the user's contributions. While I see nothing alarming with this user that would make me oppose his candidacy, I don't see much that makes me support him either. It doesn't seem like he's had a lot of interactions with other editors (for example on his talk page), and thus it's difficult to determine how this candidate will deal with the conflicts inherent to adminship. I don't need to see GA or FA or DYK articles, but a little bit of content creation would be nice. All this being said, the candidate seems trustworthy and my instinct is that he would use the admin tools responsibly, but I just can't quite put myself in the support section. Probably another few months of good work on the English WP would make me comfortable with supporting him. PDCook (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Limited contributions to Wikipedia. Minimal content creation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
5. Neutral - Nice userpage, let's try to focus on improving Wikipedia first and then request this again. There isn't anything really wrong with you, but I would like to see some more article work, or at least some more counter-vandalism. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
6. Neutral Would Jamesofur be a good admin on the English Wikipedia? Probably, yes. However, he's not very active on this project and has little to no experience with content creation here. So while he could – and I do admire his service on other projects and in the crosswiki department (I supported his candidacy for stewardship) – I don't necessarily think he should. If he had more sustained activity on this project, I would probably support his candidacy for adminship. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
7. Neutral - I am firmly against high edit counts as being regarded as a path to adminship, but I have seen a lot of RfAs from really experienced users fail, so I think a bit more all round experience is needed here. --Kudpung (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2010 (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.