Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jamesontai 2

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

Jamesontai

Final (talk page) (58/35/15); Ended Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:22:35 (UTC)

Jamesontai (talk · contribs) - I am honored (again) to present to the community (again) Jamesontai. In his previous RfA in January 2008, many raised concerns about his inexperience at the time. Eight months later, he has broadened his scope and activities in Wikipedia, engaging himself in vandalfighting, AfD, among other places, which of course includes article writing. I believe that eight months after the last nom, he has enough experience and enough enthusiasm to be an outstanding adminstrator. kurykh 05:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: I understand if Wizardman gets mad at me for preempting his own nomination of Jamesontai. —kurykh 05:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am once again very honored to be nominated for adminship and I accept the nomination. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:57, 14 September 2008 (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: - I am currently working on WikiProject Robotics, which is in my academic field of research. I have a lot of experience in fighting vandals and I wish to assist other administrators in keeping this encyclopedia vandal-free. I will also help in AfDs, as I have experience in this area as well. I do WP:NPP as well, and I am a regular user on freenode. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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

A: - I have worked on many articles since my last RfA in collaboration with other users. WP:UNI/COTF was a project that I was very actively involved in, but after lack of activity, I have since moved on to engineering topics, robotics, mechanical engineering articles. I have also taken some time to revise articles, such as Melbourne, Florida, Brevard County, Florida, as well as Florida Institute of Technology, the university I currently attend. However, the major article I started was Florida Institute of Technology Academics. This particular article brought me to truly understand Wikipedia policies when I first started to actively contribute. The article was supposed to be only about the Florida Tech College of Engineering, but a quick AfD pretty much gave me a clear understanding of WP:N, WP:RS and other key Wikipedia guidelines. Eventually this article was turned into a listing of all of Florida Tech's colleges and laboratories until I expanded the article enough to formulate a general "Academics" article. I wouldn't call this article my best contribution, but defintely the most memorable. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:17, 14 September 2008 (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 am generally a very calm person to work with. However, there have been an instance in July where a user off-wiki stalked me after an AfD conflict. The user was using sock puppets and was trying to incorporate garbage into an idea and call it a scientific article. This instance was brought up to WP:ANI as well as WP:SSP, where the user has now since been indefinitely blocked. It caused me some stress when this user then sent an email to the Office of the President at Florida Tech regarding this issue and then labeling me a stalker and then tried to say I was using Wikipedia to look for women. As humorous as the claim, university personnel, who I'm connected with, knew at the time I am currently in a relationship. Learning how to deal with this incident brought me closer to several other editors here in the community, and I thank those who have supported me along the way. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Gazimoff

4. There are a large number of policies, guidelines, processes and essays that document various aspects of Wikipedia. Out of the veritable Smörgåsbord available to you, which do you feel are the most important? Please include any argument or reasoning behind your choice. Many thanks!

A: - Can you clarify that question please? Are you asking me to pick the most important <insert # here> of policies, policies, essays, and processes? And in what context are we talking about? Thanks! :D - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do my best to clarify. What I'm trying to get a picture of is your understanding of policies, guidelines and so on, how they work and how they are used. As such, I'm asking for an opinion with an open context, not with any specific scenario or element in mind. Many thanks, Gazimoff 19:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok. Thanks for the clarification. Well, I'll try my best to explain this one. I hope the wording doesn't come out awkward. Policies are Wikipedia (I'm trying not to define a word with itself here...:D) standards that Wikipedians have agreed upon via consensus, while Wikipedia guidelines are considered advisories. Process is generally through consensus, to promote feedback. And essays are, well, essays... but they contain ideas of an editor or a group of editors in which the idea has not gone through the consensus stage to form a policy or guideline. Now, while I observe Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I also observe general ideas posted in several essays (like the somewhat humorous Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of assuming good faith). If you would like me to clarify my answers further, please don't hesitate to ask. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from  Asenine 

5. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?

A: - I believe verifiability is more important than consensus. Especially in BLPs, I think it is important to keep an encyclopedia article factual. Consensus is ideal, but as long as the neutral source is a WP:RS, that source is considered cold, hard fact. And I'm sure if there was consensus previously, there would have been at least some sort of reference they based their consensus upon. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

6. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

A: - Sure I have User talk:Soggypenny had a problem with a scientific article in which the user didn't want anyone to touch until May 2008. It was soon deleted. Through the user's questions regarding such actions by other editors, I asked him to not upload the next version of his article until it is ready to be fully reviewed by other editors. Before the article was deleted, I helped the user create a sandbox article of the deleted content in his userspace, where he is free to edit until such time he's ready.

Another example would be User talk:Dunbarland, where he was confused regarding The Inspiration Network (INSP). I was on WP:HG and reverted one of the edits made. The user posted on my talk page User_talk:Jamesontai/Archive_4#Need_help_understanding.2C_Jamesontai.21, regarding his frustrations with his company's article. There were clear WP:COI problems, and I gave him the specific guidelines pertaining to such issues. There is a list of these guidelines I have on my userpage, which is a great tool for me and others to review. I understand the policies on Wikipedia, but I don't remember every word. (Yes, I admit it, I don't have photographic memory... so sad) I generally like to review these policies as I need to verify my statements and advice before I give them. Anyways, the user eventually understood after being shown what are policies are, and thanked me. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

7. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

A: - Well, I will continue vandal-fighting, only I will also have the ability to block users who are repeated vandals. I would really like to help out with WP:AIV as well as WP:CSD. I would also help out in WP:AfD in help closing AfDs and finding consensus. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from zzuuzz

8. You recently reported an editor to AIV for vandalism, after making a single edit and never having received any warning. By listing an editor at AIV you are asserting that they need immediate blocking. What are your views on providing warnings to editors before blocking? How long would you have blocked for?

A: - Right, same edit used twice? OK. This user did not pose a threat, as I've mentioned below. The edit history had two similar IPs I was consistently reverting. However, answering the question itself, not just this particular instance, the vandals should have already had their uw4 tags on their talk page. Also, the period of time which to block is also depends on the level of vandalism and persistence of vandal behavior (has this user/IP been previously blocked before). Instances like these with 24.72.1.41 and 131.109.123.57 merit longer blocks, but others who are new to Wikipedia and so forth should be blocked in smaller time increments. A common time period is 24-48 hours, but I've seen some odd ones like 56 hours before. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from H2H

9. Explain Wikipedia:RTV in your own words.

A: - Right to Vanish is a courtesy a user may enact in order to leave Wikipedia or to change his/her username to a different one. It is not a free pass for a fresh start, and if it's just a username change, Wikipedia:Changing username can provide a merge of edit histories to preserve the contributions from the old account. (If you would like me to go a little deeper than this explanation, please let me know.) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I struck-out the section that some editors thought I meant that users can use WP:RTV to come back. I didn't mean to have that come out that way. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Question from Stifle

10. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A. - If the person is currently retired, and the notability of the person rested on the visual appearance during his/her earlier life, the newer free picture may not serve the equivalent purpose as a non-free image taken during the person's career, so a non-free image would be acceptable. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions from D. Trebbien:

11. How many times have you used a speedy deletion template (eg. {{db-bio}}), and of those, how many times has your addition of a speedy deletion template been reverted? (The numbers can be calculated by another administrator, but I am also interested in hearing whether the candidate has an opinion on cases, if any, where his addition of a speedy deletion template has been reverted.)

A. - I'll be completely honest here. I'm sure there have been a couple of cases before my first RfA, and especially when I was learning the ropes on WP:TW. However, I generally lean towards AfD some of the articles what lay in the "gray area". If there is some asssertion of notability, I generally look for sources myself on Google first. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up - I'm not sure if this will help answer the question, but here's what my admin coach said "I think you're tagging quite well with a high rate of success (is that the right word?). Anyway, I think the only thing preventing a successful RfA now is time." (See diff.) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Numerical answer: From my calculations going back until April 2008, out of around 360 CSD taggings, only around 7 and 8 were overturned by other parties (discounting first authors, self-reverts, and nominations of the tagged article to PROD or AfD), giving an accuracy percentage of around 97.7-97.8%. Other administrators may verify if desired. —kurykh 20:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from staffwaterboy

12:Please explain the steps and procedures that you would take in order to deal with sockpuppets and the stock puppet master/owner?

A: - Well, above all, I check to see if this user already has a WP:SSP case. (No reason to duplicate reports) Assuming the edits are recent and the SSP isn't already blocked, I am one of several users given access to Betacommand's UserCompare tool. I can cross reference users and the suspected sock puppet to see if there are matching edits, similar IP ranges, etc. Here is a blatant and confirmed example that I ran on the UserCompare tool of a known sock puppet. Please refer to this sample output. This is actually the user who off-wiki stalked me in case you were wondering. A simple check like average edit-time and reviewing the shared diffs on several articles can generally determine if there is a reasonable amount of suspicion. Once I have that evidence with me, I would begin a new report at WP:SSP. I would notify all parties involved, master account as well as the suspected sockpuppet accounts regarding the open WP:SSP case and review the claims accordingly. I would also request a CheckUser if necessary as a next step and if returned positive, indefinitely block all associated sockpuppets and possibly a short-term block for the master account. In the case of Julie Dancer, the main account was blocked for seven days before other issues from WP:ANI, including violations of WP:NPA escaladed the block to an indef block as well. I know this is a specific case, but I wanted to show that I have experience with this issue. If you would like me to clarify anything, please let me know. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you good enough for me.

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Sandbox} 23:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from User:bwrs

13. Do you think that math and science articles on Wikipedia are generally too complex, too simple, or just right? If your answer is "depends on the article," then please provide examples of each. Bwrs (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A: - I generally find most mathematics, science, technology, and engineering articles interesting and I try my best to understand as much of it as possible. One of the main reasons that I continue to edit Wikipedia is to keep myself learning new things, especially if it pertains to my field of study. I know I don't know everything about math and science, but I contribute whenever I can. I think generally they are a much preferred subject since these articles generally contain very definitive in terms of right or wrong. I hope I'm not going off-topic, but basically I find them just right ;) If you believe I should elaborate on this more or need clarification, please let me know. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

'Optional question from  Marlith (Talk) '

14 What do you want Wikipedia to accomplish in the next 10 years?  Marlith (Talk)  03:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A: - Quite an open-ended question there. Although I can see many things happening with Wikipedia in the next ten years, I'll just stick to a couple of points for now. First, I think we need to have a better way of sorting through these articles. We have categories, lists, portals, projects, but we miss articles for inclusion all the time. Just yesterday I was working with ^_^ and I started working on an article on ODM (Oriental Medical Doctor) and I started searching for oriental medicine, only to find Oriental Medicine is also an article. We really should start automatically sorting/searching through similar articles and merging them. I know we have editors who do that already, but there should be a system for this. Second, I want Wikipedia to have the power to self-check and self-block vandalism. It sounds crazy now, as it is impossible to determine what is and what is not vandalism, but we've got ten years. Murphy's Law pretty much guarantees that we should have enough computing power by then. Third, I think we need to have copies of Wikipedia freely available to every child on Earth within ten years. I know what Jimbo's goals are, but I my own. Within ten years, I think we should have already accomplished several editions of the WP DVD (or whatever media it will advance to in ten years). Spreading knowledge is important and I believe that equal opportunities and unbiased education will dramatically improve the world. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up question: Did you mean Moore's law instead of Murphy's law that "pretty much guarantees that we should have enough computing power by then"? Murphy's amusingly fits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A: - I meant Moore's law, but my earlier answer originally had a bit about SkyNet as well. I decided on removing that bit so that I wouldn't be seen as not taking this process seriously. I believe what I previously was "...enough computing power by then. And if in four years SkyNet would take over, I don't think the AI would be a problem..." Sorry for not changing it back to Moore's Law after removing that bit. In a sense it was a jest on "what can go wrong will go wrong." - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from TomStar81 (Talk):

15. What is your opinion on the use of optional questions in an rfa? Are they helpful or hurtful to a potential candidate undergoing an rfa?

A: - There are many types of users on Wikipedia, some are vandal fighters, some are content contributors, some like to work on images, etc. I think optional questions can better help fellow voters understand the candidate's qualifications and clear up and questions/doubts they may have. As long as the question(s) are constructive and not underlying personal attacks, I believe that they truly help the RfA process. In fact, it is how I've turned a couple of neutral votes to support votes here. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Jamesontai
• Requests for adminship/Jamesontai 2

• Links for Jamesontai: Jamesontai (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Jamesontai
• I passed WP:ADMINCOACHING with User:James086. See diff. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

• If kurykh admits that Wizardman was apparently to be involved; was this nomination rushed? Caulde 17:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be my fault. I transcluded before remembering that Wizardman has to co-nom before transclusion. I don't think that would be rushing though, just something I missed at 4am. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• The previous section that used to be here was moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jamesontai 2#Majorly vs. Realist2. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I can't see why not. His edits seem fairly good and his responses to questions seem reasonable. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Nominator support —kurykh 05:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Support I actually had a very early experience with Jameson back many months ago, back when he had just started. I'd like to think I have taught him a thing or two ;) I am glad to support Jameson tonight. Back in his last RFA, he was too inexperienced. But as his nom said, 8 months later he has really grown into a highly productive editor. I fully trust him with the tools, and he will be a net positive to the community. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Weak Support. I'm exhausted (it's 1:33am here), but I did go take a look at this candidate's merits (not quite as deeply as I'd like, but sufficient). His work seems good, he's civil, and seems to know what he's doing. Support is weak because of the endless automated edits and I couldn't find a single article that he has created this year (aside from a couple of forks and redirects). I'll look over the candidate again when I'm not so tired to verify whether I want to remain at weak support. Useight (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Did not succede last time due to lack of experiance, its been sometime now and the user has gained experiance. Breif view of contributions is encourageing, attitude seems well fitting for an admin. Prom3th3an (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - Very much improved. I don't see any glaring missteps or anything of the kind, so support. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 08:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Should really have passed last time. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Support per Wisdom89. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 08:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - RfA is all about trust, and I trust this user. ...and why the hell not?  Asenine  10:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
10. 我是米乐· 地阿伯， 我核准这个信息！- 10:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    Support Seems like a good candidate. On a side note though, I think you should be more careful to follow WP:BITE. This reply to a newbie is very short and sounds unfriendly, something I think an admin should do better. SoWhy 11:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC) (Switch to neutral)

11. Excellent. Hope this RfA isn't shattered, you'd make a good sysop. —§unday His Grandiloquence 11:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Strong Support How can I not, this guy is very dedicated to Wikipedia. Will be a asset as an admin. Well said on the discussion page - upgraded form support to strong support--Theoneintraining (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    Support, too few portal talk edits. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 12:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

13. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Sorry, wrong queue...sorry, wrong queue. I Support Jamesontai as a great editor, and will be a great admin. Xclamation point 13:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
15. No trust issues here. · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
16. Support per above. Dlohcierekim 13:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - I seriously thought this guy was already one. Sunderland06 (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
18. Support - he will make a good admin.   jj137 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
19. Support - This guy is very motivated and will not let us down. killerofkiller (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC) — killerofkiller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
20. Support - Has plenty of experience I can support. x1987x^(talk) 15:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Good enough for me. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Nothing but positive interactions. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
23. Support. I trust this user from what I've seen. However, the answers to a couple questions, primarily Q10, are admittedly concerning to me. Not enough to hurt my support, though. Wizardman 20:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    After reading WP:NFC, I see why you answered Q10 the way you did, the policy is currently not worded very well. I now have no worries. Wizardman 20:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

24. Support - He's a good guy who does a lot for fairness. Has my support. Kri77777 (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC) — Kri77777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    Not a SPA, this is one of the Wikipedians I know in real life. He browses most of the time, but certainly not an instance of WP:CANVASSING. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

25. Support. He's cute. --creaɯy!^Talk 22:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
26. Strong Support Would make a very good sysop very helpful and responds very quickly to a person inquiry. Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Sandbox} 23:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
27. Support A very excellent editor! We can't all make thousands of edits to Michael Jackson related articles, and vandal fighting is very useful. Admins who only write don't have the experience needed for admin rights. We have several highly excellent admins who only vandal fight, so there you go. And I'm sure he's learnt his lesson with the IP thing. P.S. Giggy, WP:BITE is merely a guideline, not a policy. There's a big difference. Majorly ^talk 23:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    When have I ever demanded that a candidate edit MJ related articles for me to support them? What does my edit history have to do with this anyways? All I'm asking for is some work with DYK's or GA's. Tiny articles can pass GA so I certainly don't consider it a "trophy". Let me guess, next you will be accusing article writers of being "myspacers". What a laugh. That said, if anyone does want to help out with WP:MJJ I might just be swayed enough to support such a candidate. ;-) — Realist² 02:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    It wouldn't surprise me if you did, looking at how tough your criteria is. The point is, I also believe admin candidates should be writers, that's why we're here. The difference between you and I though is I don't expect dedicated work to one or two particular articles, with the sole gain of getting a star on it, or whatever. Some people don't have the time or motivation to dedicate themselves to it, or lack the creativity to create a new article for DYK. That shouldn't stop them being eligible for adminship. Every edit made is an improvement in some way, be it a revert of vandalism, or fixing a typo. That's all that matters to me. Majorly ^talk 02:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    I don't get articles to GA or whatever for badges, I do it because I love wikipedia and it has dramatically improved my own communication skills. When I started wikipedia I had a poor understanding of grammar, spelling and tense. Personally I do believe wikipedia is about time, motivation and creativity. If our admins can't show this then what hope is there for the rest of us? — Realist² 02:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    This is where I start to question what this tangent is doing on the RfA. Realist, I hardly see why I am being charged with inexperience with article writing and hence the automatic assumption that I would delete another one of your articles, which may or may not end up being a GA. This type of unproven rumor to the point of WP:CRYSTAL and the assumption that I will bite every newbie is when I start calling shenanigans. Editing current articles is every bit challenging as (re)writing a full article all by yourself. When you write an article by yourself, you adapt to your own writing patterns, cite a certain type of source, everything is to your own personal liking. When you're editing multiple types of articles, you adapt to many types of article writing styles and learn formats for different aspects of this encyclopedia. Now, as much as I want you to change your vote to the point to where I want to say I'd do WP:MJJ, I'm an honest person and, quite straightforward too. I don't care about WikiProject Michael Jackson, which is why I don't participate in the project (surprise!) I focus on engineering topics, technology topics, robotics topics, and topics where a clear yes and no can be rightfully asserted. I'm sorry if I seem to be uncivil at this point, but can these tangents be moved to the talk page? I've already got a voter who's mistaken someone else's quote as my own, I certainly don't need more misunderstandings for me to sort out. Many thanks, and good luck on the talk page. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    What, so biting newbies is a good thing because it's only a guideline? Giggy (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Where did I say it was a good thing? You said it was a policy, I merely corrected you. Majorly ^talk 12:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    You said there is a big difference between it being a policy and a guildeline. I would contend that the spirit of WP:BITE—don't treat newbies like crap—is the same regardless of the template on it. Do you disagree? If no, then it really doesn't matter what it's labelled as. Giggy (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

28. Weak support I really can't take the lack of GA, FA & DYK into account; they are not pre-requisites for ability to wield the mop. Horses for courses, and all that. What qualifies my support is the response to a newbie mentioned in the opposes; WP:AGF and WP:BITE are very important in regard to new users, and let us not forget it can take about three months to find your way around here properly if you want to be a committed editor. However, I've seen enough of Jamesontai to hope that that would not be repeated. Hence my support. I'm sure he'll take all comments on board. --Rodhullandemu 00:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
29. Support Having read through your answers above and browsed through your posts, I think you'd be a decent administrator Fr33kman^{talk APW} 04:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
30. Support. He seems to have demonstrated good judgement - I've no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. He says he plans to use the tools for vandal-fighting - that's good, we'll always need more vandal-fighting admins, the more the better. I'm mystified by the complaint that he's not been involved with DYK, GA or FA. The complaint seems to be that his edits are less editor-ish and more admin-ish. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    ...and if these two edits that Giggy found, and one erroneous AIV posting, are really the worst examples we can find from more than ten thousand edits, then he's doing pretty well. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

31. Support. As a active member of WikiProject Robotics, I interact with Jameson almost on a daily basis, and have worked with him on many different occasions, from writing to vandal fighting, from project discussion to assessment drive. I cannot think of a better candidate, and I know the various WikiProjects he is involved in will certainly benefit greatly from a responsible administrator. --Jiuguang (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
32. Support - I provided some admin coaching earlier this year, however I have been very busy recently and have not been editing much at all. Jameson is very useful to Wikipedia. I do not find the biting mentioned below to be serious, he was not aggressive just a bit cold in his response. The diffs provided are definitely not enough reason for me to oppose this RfA; Hughcharlesparker puts it quite well (2 supports above this one). James086^{Talk | Email} 15:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
33. Weak Support. I do not think that participation in FA, GA, DYK is necessary for being an admin. The candidate has a solid record of both mainspace and projectspace contributions. The diffs re interactions with IPs are somewhat worriesome, which causes me to qualify my support, but looks like a good admin candidate nonetheless. Good answer to Q5. Nsk92 (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Support Having looked at your answers and reading a bunch of your contributions and comments, I think you'd be a good admin. Some of your comments to people have been a bit off color, but I think that's just a learning curve thing. I have no problems with FA, GA or DYK or mainspace edits generally. I don't think that these things guarantee someone to be a good editor, just that people will recognize their names. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 17:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Is there a reason that I'm not seeing for this support to be indented? Protonk (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    Yes... double vote. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

34. Weak support I recognize that content contributions aren't everyone's bag (Mine are fairly limited), but I feel that more work on content with editors would help ameliorate some of the concerns about biting. However, I think the answers to the questions are good (in the main, there are some I wish were answered differently) and the opposing arguments don't present a pattern of behavior that would indicate a propensity to misuse the tools. Protonk (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
35. Support. Bwrs (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
36. Support. I trust this editor to do the right thing or if they mess up to fix it and change their style to be more effective at everything they do. -- Banjeboi 00:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
37. Support – Really, not giving a wikilink to a list of policies? I've seen much better opposes in my time. As for DYK, GA, or FA, take a look at DerHexer, and you'll see that he's been nothing but an asset for his entire administrative career. —Animum (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
38. Support per his (long) statement under Majorly's Support. Shows good character and good intentions. Trust me, opposing for the lack of article writing is just being paranoid.--KojiDude ^(C) 02:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
39. Support. The point is article work it's not DYK/GA/FA, and I say that as a fairly prolific contributor to those processes myself. Although I choose to do my article work that way, it's by no means the only way to work on articles. And to think it is would be a grave misunderstanding of our project. So combine that with a single terse answer to a new editor? Yeah, it's not the right way to respond to a new editor, but it's a single edit blown way out of proportion. What a disheartening and superficial evaluation of the candidate from some of the opposers. James deserved better. --JayHenry (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
40. Strong Support I feel this editor will make an excellent admin. Bstone (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
41. Again?! Of course! BoL (Talk) 03:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
42. Strong Support, an interesting response to my question really gives hope for the long run. I look forward to seeing what he can do.  Marlith (Talk)  04:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
43. Support. I believe Jamesontai will use the tools responsibly and effectively, and that remains the most important litmus test, in my mind, at least. In any event, he's done some great work on the project, in a number of areas, and I think he will only be able to accomplish more once he's provided a mop.   user:j    (aka justen)   06:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
44. Hello, my brother-in-law was eaten by a shark and I would like to buy a nice thank-you-card for the shark...oh, wrong queue. While I am here: Support -- a fine candidate who would do well with a mop. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
45. Support. As far as I can tell, the "oppose" section revolves around one or two diffs amidst your several thousand diffs available for review. I'm not a big fan of any RFA candidate that "over-contributes" to the oppose section of their rfa, but at the same time, I'm also equally unimpressed with those that say "per xxx without looking at contribs. Your contribs are fine. You bit an IP once, and deleted something from your talk once. EGADS!!!! Where's my f***ing banhammer!!!!!. Seriously, you are a net positive. You've obviously learned (the hard way, unfortunately) that a single diff or two will tank an RFA if presented by the right person, and early enough in your RFA. The opposers are right, you were bitey. Where they are completely wrong is that they are using a single diff, maybe two, to characterize you as some sort of villian, anti-Wikipedian. You likely won't pass rfa, the ship has sailed on this, but take heart. Many, many good Wikipedians, (including some) of the opposers below, haven't passed RFA. RFA is corrupted by self-importance, even though it usually gets things right. Keep your chin up, Jamesontai. Keeper ǀ 76 23:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
46. Support. Incidentally, since when has RFA become some sort of interrogation session? All I want to do is comment on candidates and I have to scroll like 500 lines before I can find the place to vote... and yes, I am a terrible, awful person because I don't spend 50 hours of my life investigating candidates before voting for them. ugen64 (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
47. Support - this is totally random, but it's pretty late where I am and I'm not wearing my glasses... anyway I was trying to read this and I got really dizzy. So, I guess I'll never know why everyone's voting against my buddy James but I'm sure as heck not. All my experiences with him have been positive. He's smart, knows his stuff, and has a nice sense of humor. From the one diff I managed to read there may be some problem with biting newbies but I'd like to think after reading that and whether or not this rfa passes that is something he can work on. After all, every single one of us is constantly and slowly improving ourselves, bit by bit- that's what life is all about, right? Good luck, dude. L'Aquatique[parlez] 06:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
48. Support - I think he can be trusted with the extra tools. He is a pleasant editor and certainly has the best interests of the project in mind. I'm also put off by a lot of the opposes. There's nothing in BITE, last time I looked, that said we are not to direct IPs to review policy. They are supposed to be treated equally, no? There would be no issue with him directing a registered user to our policies, so I really don't see what the issue is. Best to link the policies, but nothing to oppose over. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 22:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
49. Weak support Careful not to bite the newbies, Jamesontai, but you seem like a fine editor. SpecialK is currently on editor review 16:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
50. Weak support per SpecialK. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
51. Support I believe that Jamesonai has what it takes to use such tools. Ginbot86 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
52. Support Good interactions with this user. Spencer^T♦C 19:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
53. Support to spite the opposition. --harej 19:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
54. Support per well thought-out, honest answers, and being rather willing to talk policy. « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
55. Support nice answers to questions, would make a good admin. - Nick C (t·c) 20:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
56. Support. Not a thing to worry about, from the looks of it. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
57. Support. This user seems reasonably active on a number of key areas, including AfD discussions and so forth. ~ Troy (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
58. Support - Good Luck! Brianherman (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Little to no interaction with DYK, GA or FA. — Realist² 12:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

   Just my personal opinion, but DYK, GA, and FA participation is an extremely poor gauge of article writing ability and participation. —kurykh 20:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

   Since I've had one of my own article nominated for AfD by an admin, unanimously Kept and turned into a GA a few days after the AfD closed I think it's very important that those with ban hammers know what an encyclopedic article looks like. No more vandal fighters, let's have the odd admin that can format a reference correctly instead. I'm not saying the candidate can't reference though. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and a battle field eighth. — Realist² 20:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

   Wow... quick fix there, edit conflict prevented me from posting "#:::This is off-topic, but I can format a reference correctly...". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Per Realist and this shocking comment. Sorry... maybe next time... Giggy (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

   Oh, and "If you would like to discuss this further, please sign in so I may properly address your concern." - wha...??? Giggy (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

   Err, the first of the two comments you quoted isn't very serious, and the second was a small slip up (forgetting that IP editors are also welcome) that many, many people fall victim to. · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

   I don't get how telling a complete newbie to review policies and guidelines (at the very least, give them a wikilink...) is not serious. We have a policy about this, and all. Giggy (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

   OK, to clear this one up. That particular request required me to explain later. I was in class when I saw this post and I didn't know if the user would be still on the same IP when I got out of class and had some free time later on. I didn't see this editor as malicious, and a simple request to ask the user to sign in so I may respond on his/her talk page shouldn't be taken to this extreme. I'm not biting newbies at all. And I have seen several oppose votes been on this particular edit... my diff there was totally misinterpreted. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'm sorry to say this response doesn't assuage my concerns at all (no, really, I am sorry). See, the issue is that, from my perspective, you basically acted here as was convenient for you. That's fine, in a sense—we're volunteers, etc. etc. But if someone deserves a proper response, surely they can wait for this proper response, rather than having you tell them to (not quoting literally, but essentially) to bugger off isn't a good idea. Surely if you were worried about the IP changing you could have replied on your talk page (as you did, I believe); its location doesn't change. The 21:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC) comment below puts it well too, IMO. I'm sorry, I just don't think you have the right attitude at this time (and that's not to say you're a bad person; there are plenty of people who probably don't have the best attitude for adminship—me included!). Giggy (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Btw. for Q9; I'd suggest you answer in terms of WP:NFCC#1, as that's essentially what's being asked.

   When I answered the question, I was referring to Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images_2 in the italics in #12. I remembered reading this a while back and when I was asked about Q9, I thought it wasn't there anymore, but sure enough, it's there. I agree with Wizardman though, the line drawn in that particular passage was not clear. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah, fair use documentation is a bitch. The one you've cited is (IMO, at a quick glance) referring to a specific case, but the general answer is something along the lines of "when there is no possibility of obtaining a free image, and a nonfree image would significantly increase reader awareness (and all other NFCC requirements, obviously)". (IMO) Giggy (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not sure I'm going to oppose this nom based on this stuff -- and definitely wouldn't go so far as to call this stuff "shocking" -- but I generally agree with Giggy's concerns. In the first, the user had already indicated that she had reviewed policy, so your comment came across as though you had not read her note carefully at all. It's not exactly "biting" the newcomers, but I think that "exhibiting indifference toward the words of newcomers" is a poor quality to have in someone who (like it or not) will be regarded as representing the project by newcomers. On the second, it is essential that an administrator understand that creating an account is optional, and not make suggestions that make it appear otherwise. Your concern makes sense, but only from the perspective of an experienced editor -- thus, not appropriate for a comment directed at a newcomer. Unless you're willing to explain it much more clearly than you did. As has been mentioned above, your convenience must not override these sort of concerns -- something that becomes more important when you're given admin tools. -Pete (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose He makes about 150 edits a day using an automated tool, half of which are rollbacks, the other half template warning message. This demonstrates very poor communication with others; also, when a new user asks him for help he simply says "look up the policies and guidelines", and when an ip makes a comment he tells him to sign in. I haven't seen him take part in any collaborative editing at all, all solitary reollbacking with an automated tool, and this leads me to believe that he would make a poor administrator. He doesn't have much article writing experience, but that's a secondary concern...--Serviam (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'm sorry I don't find that true at all. I am a regular user on #wikipedia ^connect, #wikipedia-en ^connect, #wikipedia-en-robotics ^connect and other rooms, where I do help many users on policies. Yes, it is harder for you to review IRC records. However, you may contact many regular users on freenode and you will find that I am actually quite helpful. And regarding the previous post, I'm not biting newbies at all via my talk page. Further interaction was not found for me to help the user. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

   I've used irc a few times and there really aren't many new people, most of it is either someone joking if the channel is quite, or people discussing happenings on wiki. The only channel with a lot of newbies is #wikipedia-en-help. I'd just like don't see much communication in your contributions.--Serviam (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

   I've been on #wikipedia-en-help ^connect several times, but the majority of the questions do go to #wikipedia ^connect and #wikipedia-en ^connect. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Well, I guess it's a mistake that 'many people make', but then again, many people wouldn't make very good admins. I would be happy to support this request in the future, but first I would like to see a more helpful attitude from the candidate towards IP editors. Remarks like that aren't ostentatious examples of 'biting the newbie', but they add up to make the an uninviting atmosphere for new editors. The newbie in question wrote a fairly long paragraph about why he thought the article shouldn't have been deleted, and was given a one-line response that was completely unhelpful and confusing. It wouldn't have been so very hard to give a few links, and explain why it was deleted. Dealing with newbies is hassle, fair enough, but if you can't be bothered to explain yourself when they get confused by our sometimes-arcane policies, then you probably shouldn't be working in an area that is so closely related to the edits of new editors. I think you should get more involved in collaborative stuff and spend a bit less time fighting vandals. Q1 was a bit weird too - what do WikiProjects and IRC have to do with administrative tasks (well, I shudder to think about the latter one..)? naerii 15:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

   Oh, and the AIV report provided in question 8 is concerning too, especially as it happened just two and a half weeks ago. naerii 15:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

   Please review the history of that article. The fact that HG did not properly pull up associated IP vandals Neil Ruddock on the 27th of August should not be held against me. I'm not blaming the automated tool, because I was the person who clicked/typed the associated buttons to perform such functions. However, I do respect your opinions. Your other concern regarding Q1, there are instances where editors need help with copyediting, reviewing article content, and so forth. I was invited to Wikipedia:Spotlight a couple days back, where they do collaborate on IRC to improve articles. Back to the "one line" thing, I don't consider my responses hasty and I certainly do not consider dealing with newbies a hassle. I won't bore everyone with details, I've taught computer classes to the elderly who didn't understand English at a very young age. Interacting with newbies are much, much easier (trust me). - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

   The IP in question is not in the same range as any of the other vandals on the page at the time, and so was probably a different person. Question 1 asks about what you are going to do with administrator tools; copyediting and reviewing doesn't require admin tools. If your responses were not hasty, then that is even more worrying. It's just kind of shocking that you seriously think a response to a query about a speedy deletion is "Please review Wikipedia policies and guidelines". We have hundreds of policies and guidelines. The response was completely unhelpful. The user in question hasn't edited since then so I guess it's safe to assume he gave up. I don't want you speedy deleting articles if you're not going to give a satisfactory response when confused people ask you about it. That's just how it is; sorry. naerii 16:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

   And while I think you're quite literally taking one point and taking it to the extreme, I don't know what to tell you. I respect your concerns regarding this particular user. However, that's not I do things at all. I just want you to know that. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Per Realist and Giggy. iMatthew (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Per Realist. miranda 17:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
7. I'm definitely seeing some WP:BITE here. Administrators should always try their best to help new people understand Wikipedia's policies. I'm seeing the opposite in this candidate. Artichoker[talk] 18:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose - No more "anti-vandal" only candidates, also per Q9 (which is blatantly wrong). Tiptoety ^talk 19:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

   Please read Q9 again. I think I figured out why you said my answer was "blatantly wrong". It wasn't supposed to come out that way. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose Per Realist2 and Giggy. You need more than just "anti-vandal" skills.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 19:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Jameson is a fine contributor. However I am disappointed to see the response to the new user Sherriec and Jameson's subsequent defence of his comment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Weak Oppose While I see a solid edit count, I must go along with Realist.America69 (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose - I was all set for a support, but I really dislike the content and ramifications of the diff provided by Giggy. The last thing we need round here is yet another admin who couldn't give a toss about newbies (and we have plenty, believe me). Pedro :  Chat  20:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Agreed with Realist2 and Giggy. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 20:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    Reluctant oppose. switched to neutral. I would like to support as I see a relatively good contributor, but diffs like Giggy's and these[1] [2] concern me. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    The first diff was a reminder to a user who has an account, to remember to sign in. Is that a frowned upon? - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    The second diff was regarding a user angry at me for removing POV material off of an article, which fell under one of my talk page policies of "If you're here to yell at me for reverting your vandalism, your post will probably be removed without further discussion." I did just that. I never said I didn't take responsibility for edits I make on huggle ever. In fact, I take that tool very seriously. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    You appear to have the diffs the wrong way round. Excuse me for saying your personal talk page policy appears to suck. As an admin you will get a lot of people yelling at you, normally rightly expecting justification for removal of their edits. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    I for one don't like "your talk page policy". Vandalism is simply reverted. People "yelling at you" may actually be people trying to communicate with you - did that thought ever occur? The IP that removes dates of birth from a WP:BLP article may be a vandal. They may also be the person who the article is about and unsuprisingly not aware of every nuance of editing this work. As admins and far more importantly as editors we seek to communicate with others not blithely ignore them. Your "policy" needs a review. Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    I do take this opportunity to reexamine my habits as a Wikipedia editor. Through this experience, along with advice from several other editors, I have taken down that policy. Now it may seem like I'm covering my ass at this point, but I sincerely did not expect this type of feedback. Plus, this set of policies was borrowed from NascarFan24, and this certainly did not pop up during my last RfA, which this very set of bullets were there in plain sight. I hope this can serve as a learning experience for me, but also, I must also point out, that not every single post made to a user's talk page must be answered. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    Strong oppose [As this is a particularly lengthy !vote reliant on the interpretation of two diffs, and since I will be away for a number of hours, I am indenting and striking it until I have a chance to read Jameson's response, as a gesture of AGF] — per Giggy. (This !vote is open to change if the contexts are shown to be mitigating or my read of the situations is wrong.) Here's what I see in the first diff: a new user, SherrieC, creates an article, likely in good faith, about a person of possible notability. The editor is clearly an ultra-newbie, creating an article about a man named Alan Fine — apparently some sort of business coach — under the article title "Creating new wikipedia article". JLT speedy-tags it, notifying SherrieC on her/his talk. SherrieC responds on JLT's talk with a very polite message explaining why she/he created the article, and why she/he believes that the subject is notable. JLT gives a curt response, failing to engage with the editor's reasonable statements or to help the editor in any way with their attempts to contribute to the encyclopedia. He points the editor to "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" without providing a link or any advice directly pertaining to the editor's concerns. Despite the fact that the editor's issue is simple — the article seems to have been speedied because it was created under a mistaken name — Jameson L. Tai appears to be utterly uninterested in taking the most basic steps to explain or help. This response seems like a lapse in basic decency. It's almost like he used the mistaken title as an excuse not to deal with good-faith questions and concerns, because they weren't worth his time. Now to the second diff. Here, an IP editor and a bot got locked in a strange edit war over the Icelandic language article. The bot is mistakenly reverting in a way that replaces the article with a list of cathedrals, while the anonymous editor is reverting the mistake of the bot. JLT comes along and makes an automated revert to the incorrect version, placing a minor warning on the other editor's page. Moments later, he appears to realize his mistake and reverts the article to the correct version and removes his warning. Then, in his next edit, he reverts his own edit and puts the article back to the incorrect version. Hey, mistakes happen. But when the IP editor comes to ask him about what happened, he fails to explain or address the concerns — just another curt reply. When the IP editor asks again and explains the situation himself, JLT again ignores the actual details, as with SherrieC, and tells the editor to log in if he wants his concerns addressed properly. Again, he seems to use the editor's anonymous status as an excuse not to address the actual situation or the editor's actual comments. Both this IP and SherrieC might as well have talked to a wall. (And I'm not even getting into the dismissal of an anon, which is obviously something I feel very strongly about.) In both situations he seems completely uninterested in other editors, their contributions, their feelings, and their concerns. He also doesn't seem very interested in the article content in question. This is not the recipe for a good administrator. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    Once again, grossly misinterpreting my edit. It took me a while to read through this, but I am shocked that this diff would cause editors to think to the extreme. I don't mind admitting to something if I made a mistake. Assuming everyone's assuming everyone's assuming good faith here, I think these diffs should be reexamined with less discriminative eyes. I do not believe these two diffs labeled me as "failure of basic decency." To doubt my judgment is one thing, to question my decency by picking (so far I've seen...4 diffs) out of 14,000 edits I've made is asinine (not the user). - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    I don't want to come down on you too hard, because you are obviously an overall plus to the project and contribute with strong knowledge on a subject (robotics) which could certainly use it. If I have grossly misinterpreted either edit, please explain what in particular I mistook, because I would love to be wrong — this is only my third oppose in over thirty RfA !votes under this account. To be clear, I am not accusing you of lacking basic decency: I believe those edits lack basic decency. I mean, why not simply explain to SherrieC why her article was deleted? Why not address her concerns after she brought them to you so politely? Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 21:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    I am going to take a nap right now and will be away for several hours, so as a gesture of AGF, I will indent and strike my !vote until I return and am able to read any response you make to that question. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 21:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    As a non-admin, I do not have the right to delete articles. I never intended on coming across as cold, or refusing help. I've always thought that whoever is the deleting admin should provide a decent reason to the author by default. The need for a user to then contact the user who nominated an article for deletion should reflect poorly on either the deleting admin, or leave some kind of breadcrumb for the confused user to find. I know we don't do that right now, as a deleted article from a CSD usually only see a user-warning from the CSD-nominator. And I understand that, but this should not be seen as me being cold at all. Does this diff look bad, sure it does. And I admit it. But does it reflect the thousands of other edits I've made? Of course not. I am a Wikiholic, and from time to time, I edit Wikipedia during class on my tablet PC if the class is boring. I can't poke individual keys on my monitor too much, but I do check my messages. This particular diff was most likely something I saw in class, gave it a quick reply, and forgot to follow up when I got home. And I realize that the fault remains mine, I'm not trying to push the blame towards anyone else, but this nippicking of four diffs to judge a 14,000+ edit portfolio is hardly legit without someone calling shenanigans. And off-topic, Mr. IP, your post before the clarification really was unnerving to read to the point I wanted to announce retirement. I've dealt with users making personal attacks at me, I've even dealt with off-wiki stalking from a vandal, which resulted a university investigation of my electronic records. I have never, been insulted in this fashion, or have anyone use a simple diff to hold it against me and tell me I don't have enough decency. I don't think I should defend this diff anymore, as it results in absolutely zero-productivity at this point. I've made my case, and if more of my peers do not trust me over this one instance over 14,000, then there is something clearly wrong with this system. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    I opposed for (essentially) the same reason. I understand that everyone makes mistakes from time to time. However your response to Giggy: "the first of the two comments you quoted isn't very serious", shows me that you consider your reply to Sherriec appropriate and acceptable. In my opinion, your reply to Sherriec was not appropriate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 05:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, did you just mistaken AndonicO's edit as my own? Please reread. I'm pretty sure you were quoting him instead... - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Excuse me, you're quite right. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

14. Oppose: Sorry, I am in favour of administrators who have had experience in more than rollbacking edits or performing vandalism reverts. I personally feel that a candidate should be well rounded, and have interactions or dealings in FA/GA or article writings in general. seicer | talk | contribs 23:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Per the evidence above of unhelpful comments, as well as rollingback an edit to his talk page because it did not follow his "posting policy". seresin ( ¡? )  04:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
16. Per Seresin. Daniel (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose, while I applaud your obvious skill at vandal-fighting, your people skills could use a little work. A little too bitey for my liking, being an admin requires handling situations delicately sometimes, and things like the talk page "policy" don't inspire confidence that you will be able to do that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC).
18. Per Giggy - mostly. Those kind of slip-ups should never come out of admins. WilyD 13:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose per this (and some of your other responses to comments here), although I came here to support. If Mr IP's oppose was really "unnerving to read to the point I wanted to announce retirement", then you're not temperamentally suited for the job; even the most laid-back admins get a stream of trolls, lunatics, and good-faith editors who happen to be angry, constantly questioning and challenging their actions; we really don't need another drama-escalator. "I am a regular user on #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-robotics and other rooms" isn't endearing you to me either. – iridescent 16:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose, sorry, per Giggy and Iridescent. You are a fine user but a different approach to certain groups of users is necessary. I will gladly support in the future if you address the concerns hereby presented by the opposition (which are not too hard to address, really). Húsönd 17:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose Has a bad attitude and doesn't see anything wrong with it. We don't need even more admins like this. SashaNein (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose Not seeing potential benefit to the project. Keepscases (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    If you don't mind me asking, do you mind elaborating why you don't see me as a potential benefit to the project please? Thanks a lot. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Obviously I can't speak for Keepcases, but when I first read this I understood it to mean, fairly innocuously, "not seeing potential benefit to the project of granting adminship." Not the kindest thing to say, especially without some supporting details -- but also, not nearly as bad as "don't see you as benefitting the project in general." As someone who has gone through RfA and participated in several, you have my sympathy -- many people swing through with very tersely-worded comments like this. I would like to reassure you that many of us who may not support your adminship at this time, are nevertheless impressed by the contributions you make to the project -- even if we forget to say so. -Pete (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

23. Strong Oppose. The I.P. incident presented by Giggy is... questionable enough on its own, but Mr. Jamesontai's "defense" is worse. I'm someone who'd easily misplace my head if it weren't firmly screwed on to my shoulders, and even I have to question exactly where a person's head would be that they would simply "forget" such a basic, ground-level norm. It isn't even the issue itself that's so disturbing. I'd compare "forgetting" that I.P. editors are welcome to "forgetting" that people with dark skin have to sit on the back of the bus. Right or wrong, I'm sorry, but even with a whole crate of this stuff, I can't buy it. The spotty communication also documented above is likewise troubling. I also can't help but at least question the judgement (and lack of aesthetic sensibilities) of anybody who would include this utterly hideous 1.57MB .GIF (or any template which even has a chance of showing aforementioned hideous eyesore) on their talk page. Certainly not a deal-breaker by any means, and I'm sure someone reading this feels it's silly to expect someone to examine over a hundred potential images - but, as a counterpoint, I feel it's silly to blindly include a rotating template, rather than just display a fixed image or three of the WikiProjects / WikiCauses you, personally, are interested in. Badger Drink (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Changed to "strong oppose" per candidate's seeming inability to follow what is a rather simple comparision (see below). Communication skills are an absolute must for any administrator candidate.Badger Drink (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

    I removed the !vote above, per WP:NPA. Badger Drink put it back; I'm not interested in getting into an edit war, so I'm leaving them for now. But I'd like to state clearly that I find most of Badger's remarks deplorable, and entirely unnecessary to the process of evaluating candidates for admin. I think my reasons are pretty self-evident; anyone who's curious, feel free to ask. -Pete (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    Maybe if you could actually, you know, understand the basic fucking principle of WP:AGF, you'd see that my comments were hardly deplorable. If you had asked for clarification before falling over yourself to jump up on your high horse and throw up one of those exhalted WP:NPA wikilinks, I'd have gladly provided it - but since you seem to find most of my remarks deplorable, I doubt attempting to reason with the brick wall you present will be a productive use of my time. Thank you for your concerns! Badger Drink (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    Okay. I'm not questioning your vote here, so hear me out. Are you trying to tell me that I'm a racist now for that one diff? (That's funny, especially when you consider Asians a minority in the United States...) If you've read through the entire thread, it shows that I didn't "forget" to welcome IP editors. Please reread. Or are you opposing because you find this image (Image:Qxz-ad106.gif) ugly? There is a way to turn off Wikipedia Ads. While I find it odd that someone would question a contribution being ugly as an oppose reason (which is funny because I've had several editors compliment my work on that very Wikipedia Ad) I think a little bit more explanation would be nice. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 12:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    Rosa Parks didn't claim she "forgot" that blacks, at the time, weren't allowed to sit on the back of the bus. That was something that nobody - especially someone who felt the brunt of racial prejudice - would "forget". Similarly, you said, quite clearly, in response to Giggy's oppose (#2, above), quote, "Err, the first of the two comments you quoted isn't very serious, and the second was a small slip up (forgetting that IP editors are also welcome) that many, many people fall victim to.". Forgetting to tie your shoes, sure. Forgetting a basic social norm - whether it's a good norm (letting I.P. users edit) or a bad norm (racism)? Sorry, not buying it. Badger Drink (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

    While I appreciate the logic behind this statement, I am disappointed that the participant feels he needs to go almost so far as to invoke Godwin's law in order to make his point and would recommend that he considers refactoring his statement in order to eliminate potentially misleading comparisons. For the second part of the participant's oppose, I would argue that aesthetics are not really a useful way of exploring a candidate's fitness for adminship. Many thanks, Gazimoff 12:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    I'm similarly disappointed that you seem to think Godwin's law somehow invalidates an argument, and even more disappointed that your inability to control your strong feelings regarding society's awkward past seems to have rendered you unable to actually process a rather simple argument. I strongly disagree with your rather irrational trivializing of aesthetic sensibilities, and question whether or not you read my words, and I quote, "not a dealbreaker". Have a great day. Badger Drink (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

    Badger, my problem is not with the points you make here, but with the way you make them, and its effect on the collegiality of the Wikipedia community. Nobody said that Godwin's law or anything else invalidates your argument. I personally am inclined to agree with the point underlying your first claim, but am pretty disgusted by the way you chose to express it. As for the second point: if your opposition was strong already, then bringing up this second point accomplishes exactly two things, as I see it: (1) it muddies your position, and (2) it comes across as a gratuitous attack and "piling on." Regardless of whether you support or oppose, please remember that pretty much every candidate for RfA has devoted countless hours to working for the public good, and is volunteering to increase their workload and responsibility. Please try to treat candidates in a way consistent with that basic fact. -Pete (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

    I'm sorry that you choose to see things that way. Badger Drink (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

24. Oppose. As Giggy notes, you really do have to basically be idiot-proof as an admin, and that comment is not befitting expected admin conduct. I was also alarmed by your talk page, which not only attempts to override the default MediaWiki article title but the entire header seems uncivil - it is as if you are rolling your eyes at having to deal with these newbies. I find your lack of patience in these cases completely understandable (and part of why I could never go for adminship) but if you do wish to become an administrator you're going to have to work on those. Sorry, other than that you're a pretty alright all-round editor, though increased participation in certain areas (and at the very least a familiary with them) as noted by Realist would also work to your advantage. Good luck! +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    Hi, I'm not intentionally overriding MediaWiki article titles for misuse, just for aesthetics. The talk page bit has been addressed by an earlier vote. Are you opposing for the previous version or the current version that's up on my talk page right now? I'm just trying to get feedback on the talk page thing at the moment. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 12:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    The current header. In my opinion it is very unprofessional (and totally unacceptable for an admin) to override elements of the MediaWiki interface. The use of position:absolute should be highly meticulous, and I find the header sloppy and distasteful. As for the warnings on your talk, I normally wouldn't be opposed, but when I have to scroll two full screens-worth on my notebook (1280x800) to get to the beginning of actual content that's when I get worried (or angry, depending on my day). The last thing you want to do is annoy or alienate the people that have come to talk to you. Oh, and get rid of that bloody ad box, 1.5mb really is extreme for a banner ad. Just my 2¢ on your talk page, I still wish you luck with your RfA. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

    Well, actually this has been around (once again, since my before my first RfA... again this wasn't an issue last time) for a while now. I actually picked up this code from another administrator (of course I changed the color scheme), which since it's been this long I really don't remember who. This makes it all the more ironic, yet interesting. Since I understand that there have been a huge crackdown on MediaWiki layout standardization and what not, I understand the need for unifying the encyclopedia. However, certain aspects of a userpage and a user's right to use his or her creativity within guidelines should not be held against an editor on RfA. I'd better understand this if this was altering MediaWiki layouts in mainspace or Wikipedia project space. If you believe the header is "sloppy" because of Calibri as a font (which this was noted by a couple of editors from my old signature template) because you're not on a Windows platform or just not have it installed fro some reason, I can change that to something more common like Arial -- but fonts aside, I think it's time to give back users some rights to their user pages. It's not disruptive anyways. Oh, regarding my talk page, you haven't actually answered my question regarding which version of my talk page you are currently referring to.  :-) Please specify. Thirdly, I hope you're not opposing with having Wikipedia Ads on a user talk page as a reason. Wikipedia Ads is actually displayed in many users' talk pages, including several current administrators'. If you believe that Wikipedia Ads is slowing down your page load time, there is a setting you may tinker with which can permanently disable Wikipedia Ads while you're logged in. So if you believe the 1.5MB is really that big of a concern, you may wish to explore that option.  :-) Thanks for your feedback. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

    Whenever I add my opinion to a RfA discussion, I usually watch the page quite closely as the process continues to evolve. I often read almost every oppose, and I've seen some in my time that have certainly been less than convincing, and more than a few that seemed somewhat baseless. In almost every case, I read, and have only ever so rarely been so moved so as to respond to an oppose. But this oppose has moved me. Almost spiritually.  :) Opposing, in whole or in part, based on an editor's stylistic choice for their talk page header is... Wow...   user:j    (aka justen)   13:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

    This is exactly why I don't usually reply to people when opposing something they want - what I say is turned against me. Let me set a few things clear. My first contribution discusses the obnoxious talk page as just one aspect of a very I'm-busy-so-go-away WP:BITEesque attitude. The second, is entirely in response to this statement: "I'm just trying to get feedback on the talk page thing at the moment." and was written in good faith, which is why it, as with the previous one, ends on a wish of luck. I am disgusted by your attempt to turn a good faith contribution against me, is WP:AGF really that hard? I yearn for the days where RfA's were a forum for suggesting improvements to an editor in every confidence that they will, at best, evaluate them, and at worst nod, smile and ignore them. You have chosen to blatantly dismiss a user's thoughts on your own RfA, and I shudder to think of you dealing with new users. Now, for your points: 1) I couldn't care less where you had previously discussed this, please stop bringing it up repeatedly. 2) Your beliefs are wonderful, but this is my 2¢, as I noted. 3) Fonts? Huh? I refuse to believe you have misread my contribution so badly and believe it has even remotely anything to do with font selection. 4) I have stated which version I am refering to - see that first sentence of my previous post? Yeah. 5) I have myself contributed a banner to Wikipedia Ads. It is not over a megabyte and a half in size. Yours is. I am surprised you haven't had an admin ask you to remove it yet. I'd wish you good luck for a third time, but you know... I'd be lying. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

    Don't get mad, Hexagon1, the font thing was because I had a separate issue earlier in February where several users who did not have Calibri installed sent messages to my talk page. Apparently it turns it into a huge Arial substitute. Therefore, if that had happened to my user-page banner, it may have looked as "obnoxious" as you mentioned. I am still looking for feedback. At this point, since your description was not clear enough, I brought up a list of possibilities for you to pick. I'm not upset that you opposed my RfA, just wondered about the reasoning behind what you were saying. And by what you've clarified above, I now have a better idea of what you were talking about. Thanks. 11:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

    Glad to have been of help. Contrary to popular belief, I don't get sexual thrills from picking fights with strangers. My advice really was just that - advice. Oh, and even though I'm on a MacBook I have Calibri, so I saw that header fine. I believe that if you use CSS to style your fonts, you get to choose the order in which they should be loaded, if one is unavailable on the system the next is tried and so on, so you may want to give that a shot. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

25. Oppose - Per Giggy. Some of the edits definitely come off a bit harsh and aggressive, even though they man have not intended to do so. Sorry. bigjake (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
26. Oppose - I don't care about article writing but this time I agree with Realist2. macy 18:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose - mostly per Giggy; that strikes me as a pretty bad bite, which if delivered by an admin would probably scare off most new users. While most of the criticism over this oppose is "one diff of thousands", I argue that this event has been far too recent to simply overlook. Additionally, some of the responses to opposes above leave me feeling a little nervous about him. Sorry, you seem like a good guy otherwise. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose — Absolutely not. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose I agree with Giggy's views here, unfortunately. rootology (C)(T) 03:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
30. Oppose – I don't usually per oppose any RfA, but Giggy and Husond make good points with good reasoning behind it. Caulde 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
31. Oppose – Whilst on the surface it appears that the user is a good editor, there are some very disturbing edits that don't make me feel comfortable that they are suitable to an admin role. biting new users and not assuming good-faith is terrible for encouraging potential editors. I also wonder how much the user relies on automated tools for editing which doesn't make a good administrator in my opinion, although it is reputable. Lympathy ^Talk 15:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
32. Oppose Too many questionable edits and interactions. Perhaps with a few more months of experience and cool-headedness. --Banime (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
33. Oppose Per Serviam. FinFangFoom (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
34. Oppose As per above, especially the points raised by Giggy. Perhaps a few more months of work, and more interaction within the project, especially with other users. Jordan ^Contribs 14:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
35. Weak Oppose I'd like to support, but Giggy brings up some valid points. RockManQ (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. "forgetting that IP editors are also welcome" is a reason for concern when someone requests the mop. What else will he forget? Can't support this RfA, I would like to see the candidate consistently showing a more helpful attitude first. Gray62 (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral I came here to support, but unfortunately, Giggy's diffs forced me to go neutral. I just can't support an admin who sometimes forgets not to WP:BITE the newcomers. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral I don't have an issue with the lack of GA/FAs, but the bitey issue is a stickler. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral More BITE-problems make me reconsider my vote. Also, in this case, which I previously stated as BITEy, I requested the deleted article from Xenocidic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), which he thankfully provided at my talk page and I think this was also a case of mistaken CSD#A7, even if it was deleted under that tag. But I see clear claims of notability, enough to fail A7, and if I am correct, then I cannot support someone who would send such articles to speedy deletion. I am sorry because I otherwise think this is a good candidate. SoWhy 07:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, I see the revised version of the article, but was that the diff in which I saw before I nominated it for deletion? (Some people improve articles dramatically after a CSD tag is placed) Or did the deleting administrator not reread the article after the A7 tag was placed on there, subsequently deleting an improved article afterwords? Could you verify for me please? Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   That might be the case. I am confident that one of the admins reading here will be able to answer this question without me having to go and bother people again. On a side note, you should really use edit summaries as summaries - currently you are using them to copy+paste your replies in there, while their purpose should be to briefly describe your reply. SoWhy 07:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   I've always taken the term edit summary quite literally. I think instead of "+ rep" or "thx" as a summary, it's sometimes easier to just read the first couple of lines of text to easily navigate my posts. It works better when there are several posts... like an RfA... where I can tell Oppose #1 to #3, just by my responses without clicking the diff link. Also, I think Minefield is failing miserably, as it is inserting what I wrote twice, but jamming the first pasting job with a second paste right smack in the middle of the first. I have tried this on another computer, and considering I don't want to leave the alpha team...but the last nightly update of Minefield effectively took out my good copy of FF3, I can't do much at the moment. I will try to make sure the summaries are readable though. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

   As for the diff I mentioned, Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was nice enough to provide me with the answer to that. According to him, the page was not edited further after you tagged it. I stand by my reasoning that this was an incorrect CSD#A7 tagging and I will thus not be able to support you anymore. I am sorry. SoWhy 10:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Neutral. Answers to questions show a bit too much fence-sitting. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral switched from oppose, my comments can be seen above. Can't support at this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Not really no, not really yes. Everyme 09:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral This was always going to be a difficult one. On the one hand, the candidate has performed some sterling anti-vandal work, but on the other hand he does seem to have a collection of concerns. The reason Realist mentions GA, FA or DYK work is because he is looking for examples of where you have collaborated with others in order to produce good quality work. Article writing is hard when done properly and by demonstrating that you have worked in these areas gives participants in an RfA comfort that your opinions will be more balanced when examining articles at AFD or CSD. The bitey-ness is of concern as well - as an admin you almost become an ambassador for the project, extolling its virtues and encouraging the concept. It means that when interacting with other editors (especially new or IP based ones) that you take the time out to support them, explaining why you made the decision, which policies supported that decision and what you recommend that the user can do in order to work within the policies. That way, not only do you direct them to further reading, but you also give them a headstart to being able to make more meaningful contributions. It's this approach that will hopefully turn a new editor into a long term contributor. Hope this makes sense. Gazimoff 13:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Neutral Can't support because of the reliance on bots, won't oppose because I don't see a reason to - the Giggy diffs strike me as minor and easily fixed goofs, and in general the candidate doesn't strike me as BITEy, just perhaps a little impersonal... which isn't always a crime. Townlake (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Neutral The Giggy diffs are worthy of note, but not necessarily undue concern, as I haven't seen a pattern of such behavior. I would feel better if they were further in the past than they were, and if Jameson did not defend them here so strongly. Admitting and acknowledging a lapse of judgement is preferable, IMHO. You have clearly learned from your first RfA, and I have no doubt that you will learn from this one, pass or fail. Arakunem^Talk 17:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Neutral This is a tough call. I can fathom, based on Jameson's account of his the real life stalking experience, why he may be reluctant to engage new editors in detailed discussions on deletions. I can also see his point that a few curt messages out of many thousands are getting blown out of proportion here — a few moths on Wikipedia were enough to convince me that there are (unfortunately) worse samples of admin behavior. The problem, as I see it, is that by getting the admin bit Jameson will have more interaction with and exposure to various troublesome individuals. I'm not sure how this would be better for him, and consequently for or for Wikipedia, since he's doing quite a bit of work already. I would say WP:NOTNOW, not because any stats or diffs, but because he needs to recover/grow a thicker skin. VasileGaburici (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Neutral I'd like to support, but can't because the editor isn't quite ready yet, per things noted by Giggy. Take your time and when people start to think you are already an admin, or admin start telling you to stop bugging them for admin services and go to RFA instead, then come here. Jehochman ^Talk 22:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Neutral communication is a vital part of building an encyclopedia anyone can edit, which makes Giggy's diffs concerning. Given those comments plus the extensive amount of automated edits I can't support this editor for admin at this time but neither can I oppose. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 23:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Neutral Again I remain undecided. Though the question answers are great, there are civility issues pointed out under the Opposes. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 00:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

    Neutral I'd like to support, but Giggy brings up some valid points. RockManQ (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Changed to Weak Oppose

15. Neutral - limited XfD experience --T-rex 20:45, 20 September 2008 (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.