Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jmh649

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ahechtbot (talk | contribs) at 15:38, 14 September 2018 (Task 3: Fix LintErrors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Jmh649

Final (103/18/14). Close as successful by WJBscribe at 08:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Jmh649 (talk · contribs) – Jmh649 has been around for a few years now. He has been a content-heavy editor, with some serious contributions to almost every important medicine-related article in the project. He has shown an interest in maintenance and namespace work. There have been a few tough patches, such as a scrap over Rorschach test, but if anything he acted in an exemplary fashion and it will have given him experience in dispute resolution. I think the tools will be very useful in his ongoing contributions to Wikipedia, and I think it highly unlikely that he will abuse them. JFW | T@lk 23:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: JFW has been one of my mentors and I accept and appreciate his nomination. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I hope to use admin tools in a number of ways including: protecting pages that get frequent vandalism, blocking vandals, protecting pages with "pending changes" if this tool becomes permanent, and moving pages to articles names that may already exist as redirects ( which requires a page delete ).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have brought four articles to GA. The one I am most proud of is Obesity however am also proud of gout, croup and strep throat. I have uploaded hundreds of images [1] mostly pertaining to medicine and added them to their appropriate pages. During the Rorschach debate I feel I generated positive coverage for Wikipedia on both television and in the international press as seen under media mentions here. User:Lokal Profil and I worked together to create over a hundred maps to illustrate the epidemiology of diseases some of which can be viewed here [2]. Other work I am currently involved in include: efforts to get a Canadian Chapter of Wikimedia up and running [3], a collaborative paper with 19 other Wikipedians from WP:MED regarding Wikipedia's coverage of medical content to be published shortly in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, and arranging the acquisition of a few hundred high quality images of rare medical conditions such as the one I uploaded here.
I exert an effort to increase Wikipedia's visibility in the medical literature. I have provided images to the NHS as seen on page 11 of this document [4] and requested that they include not only myself but Wikipedia as a reference. I have also done the same for the coming edition of Tintinalli to come out in Oct 2010.
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 have gotten involved in a number of debates including ones involving abortion, the Rorschach test, and Transcendental Meditation. I find the most important thing is using the best avaliable evidence from the best avaliable sources then getting input from other Wikipedians through either WP:MED or the notice boards always keeping in mind that Wikipedia is a work in progress.
Additional optional question from Doc Quintana
4. Give me your interpretation of when IAR is appropriate
A: I interpret IAR to mean that one should use common sense, that one does not need to know all the rules and regulations to begin or to continue contributing to the encyclopedia. As an example in medical related topics there is a balance between presenting information in a consistent format and presenting information in a logical order. We have WP:MEDMOS which lists the preferred order however sometimes in conditions that are primarily of historical significance the history section should come first, in others the classification of the disease may be do complicated to be listed first and is really only relevant after an introduction to the condition.
Additional optional question from Paralympiakos
5. Could you please explain the use of rollback in edits such as this? Some people choose to use rollback for edits that are self-explanatory. It might be my ignorance and lack of knowledge regarding the subject, but these edits (there are a dozen or so in the last 500 contribs) don't seem like one of those occasions to me. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Answer from Jfdwolff) - this is from a series of internal spam-like activity from RXPhd (talk · contribs) who was dumping List of pharmaceutical companies to all sorts of pages. Giving individual edit summaries would have been very tedious. JFW | T@lk 09:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: Thanks JFD here are some difs that explains matters further: This editor added a see also link to List of pharmaceutical companies to nearly 100 hundred pages from erectile dysfunction [5] to clinical trials [6]. A user posted a concern here [7] and requests to stop were posted by a number of users on this users talk page [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ok then. I saw what looked like a genuine attempt by the "spammer" to discuss the matter, but upon researching, fair enough. I'm happy enough with the answer. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Salvio giuliano
6. When, if ever, would you block an editor who hasn't received four warnings?
A: I would block those who have have made obvious legal threats. This is something Wikipedia needs to take seriously. I spent 8 months with legal counsel defending myself after the Rorschach test issue as a Wikipedia editor filled multiple real life complaints against me. Thankfully I am insured but not everyone is so lucky. Here BTW is an article [9]. I will comment further as has been requested. A block is appropriate if one has good reason to believe it will prevent immediate damage to Wikipedia. Specific justification is listed here Wikipedia:Blocking_policy
7. When, if ever, would indef an IP editor?
A: IP address should never be indef blocked as the people who use an specific IP addresses change. A year would be a maximum and only after multiple shorter blocks.
Additional optional questions from Beetstra
8. What are the Local spam blacklist and the Meta spam blacklist, what are they for, and which are the (core) policies and guidelines that they relate to. How should this functionality be used (also in conjunction with the Local Spam-whitelist and/or XLinkBot)? What would you look at if you were (to handle a request) to blacklist an abused site (I'm using the term 'abused site' with he aim to span more than plain spam)? And what would you look at when you were (to handle a request) to whitelist a specific link on a blacklisted domain or (to handle a request) to de-blacklist the whole domain?
A.These lists are one of the automated ways that Wikipedia defends itself from spam. The local list applies only to the English Wikipedia while the Meta list applies to all projects. Here is one of the documents that deal with these lists Wikipedia:Spam blacklist they are as stated here as a last resort to deal with spammers. The instruction are laid out fairly clearly in that one would need to consider if page protection, blocking a single or a few users, using XLinkBot or an edit filter would be better. The policies they pertain to include Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:External links. But seriously what I would do is discuss matters with someone with more experience in this domain than I. Much like in real life it is wise to stay within ones competence and currently altering these lists is outside of mine.
(ec, and hence adapted)Thank you for the answer. Both Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:External links are mere guidelines. Of course, a heavy weapon, as e.g. usage of the spam blacklist (but the MediaWiki namespace contains a couple of other weapons like that), would be based on more than just that. What situations would you envisage that would make you use (or ask users who are there more often to use) these 'weapons'; when would you consider that page protection, blocking or XLinkBot would be futile, and would you then make use of these pages? After all, the admin bit does not come with the ability to block, protect and delete only. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is for widespread, unmanageable spam to a site that has no reasonable legitimate use. Thus if the spam link in question were being added to many pages by multiple unconnected users neither page protection nor blocks would work. And as this link has no legitimate reason for it use XLinkBot would not be the right tool.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Xeno
9. Please describe the concept of administrative recusal. What situations would cause you to recuse yourself from acting as an administrator?
A. Recusal refers to the act of not using ones admin tool in cases in which one has a WP:conflict of interest. I would thus never use admin tools in cases in which "I have prior personal involvement in the substance of the dispute or significant personal involvement with one of the parties" as per here. Even the appearance of impropriety can lead to difficulties and in such cases it is often safer to ask for a third opinion before making calls on contentious issues.
Additional optional question from Gimmetoo
10. You find a non-admin account with a username similar to an admin account, with a note on its user page saying it is an alternate of the admin account. After some searching, you don't find any edits from the admin account to the non-admin account that would confirm the non-admin account as an alternate. The admin account has not edited in months. Do you block the non-admin account as a potential imposter until it is confirmed by the admin account? Explain why or why not with reference to any policies you think relevant. If not, state what you would do.
A:


General comments

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

Discussion

  • Reporting vandals is relatively straightforward and simple. It doesn't take a genius to do it. I can't believe some people think reporting vandals on 60 occasions isn't enough experience. Is there something that an editor is unable to comprehend until they have a certain number of edits to AIV? This appears to be blatant judgment based solely on edit count. SwarmTalk 03:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Nominator support. JFW | T@lk 07:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. --WS (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support Not only is this editor a strong contributor, but also, has always appeared to show a friendly, professional, and genuinely helpful approach to collaborating. I am sure this can be validated by others who have worked with the articles pertaining to the vast reach of the Medicine Wikiproject, where he regularly helps both new and experienced users with article and task force problems and suggestions, as can be seen at the project's talk page [10] where he is the second most highest contributor. Civil, professional, knows his way around the encyclopedia, and willing to help other do the same. Can only further benefit the project and the encyclopedia as a whole. Calmer Waters 10:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Jmh has contributed substantially to the project. Fantastic contributor. Good answers. Actually admits to being in disputes (wow!). Well experienced. I would probably trust your average vandal-fighter with the tools in these circumstances, so I absolutely would trust a valuable encyclopedist with them. SwarmTalk 10:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Calmer Waters. James is exactly the sort of editor we want as an administrator, regardless of how often he will use the tools. NW (Talk) 11:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Longterm user, with clue and experience of a contentious area. Having now read through much of the material that lead up to it, I'm happy to disregard the one short block per time served, especially as it was over a year ago and relates to a content dispute. ϢereSpielChequers 11:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Looks like a candidate who has contributed a great deal, has made the effort to understand Wikipedia policies and practices, and is good at communication. Answers to questions look fine to me, and I see no reasons at all not to support. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support. James is an excellent content contributor and understands well how policies apply to articles – and those are the main reason for us being here. More importantly, in my interactions with him, he is always willing to listen to reasoned advice and act on it. No sysop starts out "fully-formed", but I am convinced that James will ease himself into the role of administrator, broadening his experience with the tools as he goes along – and be a better admin for it. I really believe we should be encouraging more good content contributors to take up the mop, rather than expecting candidates to artificially garner huge edit counts at NPP and AIV. The question is actually "Do we trust him with the tools?" I do, and you should too. --RexxS (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, from a brief review everything looks good to me. The odd minor concern is brought up in the oppose and neutral sections, but I certainly don't see anything remotely worthy of withholding my support - a generally competent and well-intentioned editor who would do well with additional tools. ~ mazca talk 14:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Seems positively engaged in and well connected with the editing community. Good talk page correspondence, including well-handled disputes. No red flags I can see. Townlake (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn. Townlake (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, impressive contributor! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Thank you for not having hateful userboxes. Keepscases (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - impressive contributor, who I am sure would make positive use of the tools. I see nothing in his history to convince me otherwise.  Begoontalk 16:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support – Great editor that I trust with the mop. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I have seen this user around WP:MED quite a bit over my tenure here. He is a great contributor and I am confident that he will use the tools effectively. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support: Solid and prolific content contributor with a demonstrated understanding of this site's policies and goals. James has in-the-trenches experience in handling on-wiki conflicts, which should be a prerequisite - not a negative - for admin candidates. I have no concerns, and I think Wikipedia will unquestionably benefit from giving James a few additional tools. MastCell Talk 17:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support Extraordinary content editor. Strong advocate for sound and consistent application of Wikipedia policies and goals. Extensive experience in highly-contentious areas, always keeps his cool. I would note that this comment below opposing the candidacy is from an editor who was recently subjected to Discretionary Sanctions as a result of an AE commenced by DocJames [11]. DocJames will make an outstanding Admin. Fladrif (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Good dude with obviously significant and accurate content contributions. Sometimes seems a bit excitable, but not in an asshole manner like many around here. :P I did mention to him a while back that I would prefer more edit summaries and fewer edits for ease of review, and looking at his contributions he has taken this feedback into consideration. It's particularly important to note when references are added/removed/changed (or content is added without references), as these are the edits which need close review, and he seems to do that pretty well these days. II | (t - c) 19:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Great content contributor and good overall editor. More than enough clue to pick up what he needs to know if he decides to get involved in areas where he doesn't have a lot of experience. Dana boomer (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support unlikely to break the wiki. Pichpich (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's virtually impossible to "break" the wiki. Tommy! [message] 19:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you type "Google" into Google, you can break the Internet, so I guess all you have to do is type "Wikipedia" into Wikipedia (I'm an American, and I love that show). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Won't delete the main page. BigDom 21:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. A good editor with good judgment.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong support. Doc James has experience in articles for deletion, helps to maintain and run WP:MCOTW, is already a roll backer and autorights user, with no misuse of these privilages. He is a fast learner, helpful, civil and is very popular among his fellow wikipedians. Wikipedia Medicine Project is unfortunately lacking in admins; it is my view that Doc James can fill this gap of lack of medical admins and I feel that he has more than earned the trust of the wikipedian community and should have been made admin a long time ago!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak support - great editor who I can trust with the tools. I would've liked to have seen a more complete answer to Q6, though. Airplaneman ✈ 21:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Sure, you seem competent. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support - I have worked with this user extensively, and have found him to be trustworthy and responsible. I think he would make an excellent admin. ---kilbad (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support good general experience, should be fine with the mop. Polargeo (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support What Mastcell says.Fainites barleyscribs 23:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, seems trustworthy enough to me. bd2412 T 00:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Great content contributor, and per Literaturegeek. Mr Bungle | talk 01:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I enjoy working with him, and I think he has enough sense and judgment to do useful things and to ask for help when he's not sure. I do not believe that admins need to be perfect from their first edit: I'd rather have admins who will make a good effort to resolve stressful or difficult situations, instead of those who are too timid to do what they can to help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I don't see the personal-related issues brought up by the opposers as being of significant danger, and there's nothing wrong with you only making a few requests for vandalism intervention or page protection. I've been around for four years now, and I'm sure that I've made fewer requests for protection. You look like someone who's going to do a good job. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support has been around a while and edited in difficult areas. Has been around long enough to show is trustworthy. As with any admin, any admin misconduct can be reviewed by the arbitration committee. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I think people use X!'s counter far too much. Looking through this users contributions, I find a more positives than negatives. I honestly don't think users need 100s of edits at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP to understand what vandalism is and when it is appropriate to protect pages. And for the block, I think you learned from it and it shows a lot about your character to see you have not been blocked since. wiooiw (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I don't need X!'s counter. I've seen his work. He's too libertarian for my taste (per Rorschach test), but that just means he'll wave the wand less than others. He could use spell-check more, so what? He passionately defends evidence-based medicine but applies WP:DUE deftly. Hard working. Anti-drama. Smart. Helpful. Anthony (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I've followed James before and through the ADHD kerfuffle (which I participated in), less since then. While he's no longer blustery, he's not timid. His improvement as a Wikipedian has been impressive. Unless winning spelling bees is essential to an administrator, he'll be an excellent one. Hordaland (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Richiez (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Good content editor, and I just have to support any editor who would say they are "proud of gout, croup and strep throat." (sorry, couldn't resist)  –Joshua Scott [who?] 15:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. No red flags, one black flag. Go Doc! TFOWR 16:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Have noted some issues, but ultimately, I'm more than satisfied with "Doc James"' contributions. He's done some excellent work in some difficult topic areas. ceranthor 17:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Seems like a decent content editor who writes well and can carry himself maturely. Net positive. Orderinchaos 17:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support great content contributor who knows his stuff. Only concern that he has been on occasion a bit too combative. On the other hand, I fully agree with the positions he has taken and trust that he will use the tools carefully. Boghog (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Net positive. This user is unlikely to abuse the tools, delete the mainpage or break the wiki. He's not afraid to speak out when something needs done even when it means stepping on toes. This is a quality which is, contrary to the beliefs of many around here, A Good Thing. While some of the opposes are ridiculous, some are valid and I hope this editor will learn from what has been expressed there and note for the future how that may affect his abilities to be a competent admin... but there's nothing there that would even make me think about not supporting. Trusilver 20:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Seems level headed, but not afraid to step on toes to do the job. Triona (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, looks like a net positive. Not really put off by the arbitration stuff; quite honestly, sometimes a bit of a firm hand is necessary against people trying to civilly POV push woo-woo crap. If his hand got a little too firm, his heart's still in the right place. Also not concerned by the "lack of AIV edits"—it doesn't take a ton of experience to ask "Are the edits vandalism? Did the vandal get warned? Have they vandalized since then?" I would advise the candidate to observe and carefully review the protection policy before starting work at RFPP, but I have no doubt that this will occur. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - per above. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Support An excellent contributor, good answers and abundantly evident intelligence and clue. Has consistently defended the need for scientific integrity and taken on contentious areas against POV pushers who have honed passive-aggressive to an art form whenever their fraudulent woo and quackery is challenged. Anyone who has come up against the snake-oil contingent - whether here, on another web place or IRL - knows they will not, cannot, be persuaded to voluntarily quit evangelising their pet assertions. It takes stamina, integrity and dedication to take them on, especially in the face of the "play-nice-at-all-costs" contingent all too quick to flex their punitive powers without really understanding what's at stake. I wouldn't be surprised that some of their enablers (and wannabes) below have not even read through the Arbitration case that has got their flags flapping. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed but also worth noting is that he will give fair weight to minority viewpoints in controversial articles, which are not out there crank stuff. He is not a singular mainstream truth POV editor but rather he in my view is a NPOV, UNDUE as well as MEDRS motivated editor. :) I can give a couple of examples if people like.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    :: Indeed but also worth noting is that I'd already seen (below) various samples of your examples and they may even have influenced me - just not in the way you intended. Anyway, I guess you've got a shit-ton more of these "in my view" gems ready to go - and there are plenty of comments and Supports still bereft - so you knock yourself out. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    zzzzzt zzt zt - wires crossed. No wonder every car battery i ever owned gets it before the warranty is out. LitGeek - you really ought to make your sig stand out a bit more so muggins like me can't confuse it :) Plutonium27 (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong support - so what if in some distant time he was a little heavy handed in an edit war over a controvertial topic and had wrists slapped, people learn and in wikipedia get better at handling difficult disputes. Since then he helped defend freedom of speech at wikipedia and for wikipedians not to be sued by simply publishing what was in the public domain (involving as I undertstand both legal threats and professional misconduct accusation) - the guy deserves our deep & humble thanks (please accept this as my late offering). Strong content contributor and on basis of our beloved founder's "not a big deal", experienced editors who are willing to engage in controvertial topics to ensure (what they have learnt) of our policies & guidelines are adhered to, deserve to be trusted with the contents of our mop cupboard. He has indicated he appreciates that he wont be toying with all that this grants ("Much like in real life it is wise to stay within ones competence..."). So moving on from one reprimand over a year ago, and reclusing the topic-specific objections of those sanction by ArbCom I fail see any current or pending fatal signs being reported (ISQ & NAD) :-) David Ruben Talk 03:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, know this user to be adequately knowledgeable about Wikipedia intricacies. Also a mediation >1 year ago is not a reason to oppose for me. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - good, active long-time contributor to the site, and has shown to be a valuable editor. So of course. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - a careful, calm editor who understands the importance of reliable sources and respects them. Some of the "oppose" comments seem to be concerns over the possibility of admin tools being used to support a POV on a specific page. That's a universal concern, but one that administrators tend to respect and thus go through the appropriate process. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose for having a user name with numbers at teh end; I've never understood that sort of thing ;)
    Obviously, I've been reading WT:RFA and such. I don't know James, but noticed this RfA. And I've looked pretty closely; I don't need X!'s fine tool for that. I looked at the block, the RFAR, the NYTimes, too. My net impression is quite positive. I see wise statements in this section, and a few in the oppose section that should have fish for dinner. James will do just fine. Strong Support. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Strange that we look back over a year and oppose. To some it is a valid concern, however, the flip side and to me, since then a progression, improvement. Im a firm beliver in the turn around, and see a net benefit to granting the tools. I am also satisfied fully with the level of anti-vandalism fighting this user has done and fully trust them to be able to handle AIV. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support An impressive contributer focused primarily on medical topics. He continues to be a valuable asset who works towards the goal of creating evidence based content. Doc James seems to understand that human knowledge is not always the same as human belief. Ceazar77 15:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)— Ceazar77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  54. Support. Seems to be a perfectly good candidate to me. Net positive, &c. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I have respect for strong contributors who edit in controversial topic areas. Occasional blemishes are to be expected, but on the whole he has demonstrated that he possesses the necessary skills for adminship. It's been more than a year since the ArbCom case concluded and since he was blocked; 12 months is ample time to demonstrate improvement and I think Doc James has done so satisfactorily. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Experience and clue seem to be there and my limited interactions with the editor are positive. Opposes seem to be either for blocks and sanctions years old, or from partisans on the other side of the TM debate, and don't impress me in the slightest. -- Atama頭 01:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support'. Good contributions, sufficient experience, no reason to think he would abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong Support. Objectively I see a committed dedication to expanding the encyclopedia - and that's what it's all about. Apart from that , his communications with others are, if anything, a bit on low side. Subjectively, I feel he has the maturity to use the tools responsibly even if he has been mildly waspish occasionally - and I think most of us have been forced into situations like that at some time or another; Without checking the backgrounds of all the voters, it does possibly appear as if some of the pile-on opposers are detractors who live in glass houses and just scraping the barrel of semantics to interpret reasons of incivility to oppose. When I discount those votes, I certainly trust this candidate with the mop.--Kudpung (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. He has shown a true interest in improving the encyclopedia with great contributions over time, even on controversial areas. Admin tools to this user will help the project. --Garrondo (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. An enthusiastic editor, who I would trust to use the admin tools and benefit WP. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 09:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Given that he actually contributes to the encyclopedia. While I wouldn't call 85 new articles a "heavy" contributor he has done lots of good work improving medical related articles and is exactly the sort of admin the site should have that finds a balance/has a lot of experience. Dr. Blofeld 09:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong Support My main requirement for a prospective admin is a dedication to improving the encyclopedia. Sometimes this comes in the form of featured articles, sometimes serious vandal fighting. Jmh649 makes lots of little (and sometimes not so little) improvements to existing articles, and these contributions (IMO) are just as, if not more important than FA's. 85 new articles to boot isn't bad either. Will make a helpful, trustworthy, mature and dedicated mop-wielder. 2 says you, says two 13:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - I've seen the candidate's work at WP:MED and am quite happy with that. Seems level-headed overall. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 14:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - I would gladly vote for an admin who has an opinion and voices it, rather than someone who disclaims his. We need admins with a clear record of contributions and this user has that record. --Sulmues (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Looks good. Given the time that has lapsed since the AE restriction (with no red flags since), I see no reason not to trust this candidate. Jujutacular talk 18:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. 4 GAs, deals with a highly difficult subject, seem like canvassing against the RFA is going on as most of the opposers are new to RFA Secret account 21:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. I see enough good things to outweigh those opposes that aren't derisory. I don't think having been subject to an Arbcom sanction should be a disqualifying event (although in many cases it will be - it just depends on the circumstances). If anything, having been at the wrong end of a dispute resolution outcome is a valuable learning experience. I think this candidate will do well.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Many of the oppose votes indicate to me that this user is probably going to make a great administrator. Especially the ones from the coordinated TM accounts. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Seems like a fine candidate. AniMate 00:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Honest , careful,and straightforward, and I fully trust he will not use the tools in areas where he is involved in controversy. For editors with a strong position on a topic, or in a topic area, that's all that can or should be asked for. It would be a step towards rewarding blandness if it became a requirement that candidates for admin refrain from engaging themselves as an editor in difficult topics. I strongly discount all opposes based upon his position on TM in particular, and I'd think that there is no further need to respond to them here. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Thoughtful and knowledgeable editor. (It is disappointing to see some of the opposes the candidate is gathering due to content disputes that are irrelevant to this RFA. I trust that the closing bureaucrat(s) will familiarize themselves with the editors involved in the recently closed TM Movement arbitration case, and recognize the apparent cause and motivation of some of the opposes). Abecedare (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strong support. I trust his judgment. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support: I've never interacted with Doc directly but from what I've looked over, he's an outstanding editor who's long overdue to be an administrator. Most of the oppose votes are actually reinforcing my decision to support. Nomader (Talk) 06:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - This was a lot of reading, but having done it I'm !voting yes to hand this guy the mop. I am absolutely floored to see he was taken to court over a Wikipedia issue... and for eight months. I commend him for sticking it out and staying with us. As for the opposers, I am largely very unimpressed. As noted, many seem to be dragging to this Rfa resentment over content issues. The project will be helped if he has a mop, and this editor has the moral sense not to abuse the tools re: WP:COI. Best wishes! Jusdafax 06:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support a competent editor who will make a competent administrator. MtD (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support per ScienceApologist and DGG. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support per Darth. Kablammo (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support This editor seems to understand Wikipedia policies well and I have no reason to worry that he would abuse the tools. Deli nk (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support – He's been around for a while, and the contributions look good, especially in the more controversial areas. –MuZemike 15:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support – Experienced editor, and I believe we can trust his words at question #9. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support, may not be the most prolific user of the tools, but will certainly be a net positive where they are used and my hat goes off to somebody who can make over 1400 edits to a difficult article like obesity and get it to GA status. That takes dedication and patience. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support We all have issues in life and online, and to expect someone to be perfect is, well, stupid. None of us would be admins if we were held to a 99%, A+++ average. We need the help, we need the experienced editors, and while there may be a few questions and/or issues, wake up and realize Jmh is going to be helping out a lot. Give them the mop, and get them to work already. Jmlk17 19:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support --Tenmei (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Nice to see an editor that has a stong background in science and medicine holding firm to verifiability. Someone willing to make a firm decision - about time. King Pickle (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Bejinhan talks 11:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. I know that WP:MED has been trying to increase the number of administrators in their active ranks for various housekeeping tasks related to medical articles that come up from time to time. As long as the candidate refrains from using administrative tools in controversial areas with which he's been involved (I would also suggest he avoid controversial areas wherever possible), I am willing to lend my cautious support. –xenotalk 13:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - without any reservations whatsoever. Graham Colm (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Certainly I'd have preferred stronger experience in admin related areas. However, will be a net positive, a la Mitchell. DGG gets right to the heart of the matter. King Pickle makes a good point as well. Having read the opposition, I can say I do not share their concerns. Dlohcierekim 14:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Smart, trustworthy, good editor. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. Appears capable to have administrator tools.--PinkBull 18:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Highly beneficial contributions to Wikipedia, and clearly an intelligent and educated editor with good motivations and good Wikipedia skills. As he works on some highly contentious articles, some friction has to be expected. I think he's handled it quite well - sticking to the policies and guidelines - and his contributions are solid. No reservations about supporting this candidate. -- Transity(talk • contribs) 23:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Cautious weak support In the end analysis, I think the benefits of having you as an admin outweigh the risks, though I'm always cautious supporting someone who has been formally restricted by ArbCom. I trust you have learned from your first trip to Arbitration, and a return will not be necessary. Courcelles 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Connormah 01:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - I think I like that this editor has been to Arbcom. We all make mistakes and the important thing is to learn from them. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - Cautious support (much as expressed by Xeno), on the balance I believe this editor having the buttons will be a net win for WP. --j⚛e deckertalk 12:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Sure thing. I didn't realize this was Doc James's username at first glance. Master&Expert (Talk) 15:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support --Diego Grez what's up? 23:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Although the candidate has had some problems, I still believe that, as an admin, he would be a net positive for the project. Laurinavicius (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support- User does not appear that he would delete the main page. Mr. R00t Talk 23:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support, appears reasonable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. More admins with MDs, please. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support, seems like a level-headed sort of person. Opposes are not convincing. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  103. Support, excellent contributor, strong science background, good answers to questions, multiple positive qualities, all-around. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Although I sympathise with you for the Rorschach test issue and although I deem you an experienced user, I don't think you're experienced enough in admin-related areas to be handed the mop: I'm not entirely satisfied by your answers and 60 edits to AIV and 13 to RFPP are a little too few, if you want to work in those areas. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 12:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While I often agree with his content positions, the candidate's conduct as described in the ADHD arbitration gave me a negative impression of his interpersonal skills. Skinwalker (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Those issues are all at least 12 months old, many are 18-24 months old. Considering that a number of people in the support section who have worked with him before see him as "friendly", "professional", and "willing to listen to reasoned advice", do you think you could provide some more recent evidence? NW (Talk) 16:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I misspoke and apologized. This was when I was just starting out as mentioned a couple of years ago.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've withdrawn my oppose after finding no recent trouble. Plus, I'm just plain embarrassed to be seen with the Transcendental Meditation cheerleading squad. Skinwalker (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose I don't think this user understands some fundamental aspects of Wikipedia. If he does understand and acts as he does then I have some concerns with misrepresentation. I think he needs more time to improve his understanding before he's given admin tools. (olive (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    "Some fundamental aspects" is a bit vague. Could you please explain further? NW (Talk) 17:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Brought a recent ArbCom enforcement against this user in which sanction were applied against her.[12] Thus I am not the least bit surprised. When one edits controversial topic not everyone will agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Salvio. Also, some proxies can be blocked much longer than a year; as well as some long-term abuse school IPs. I'd also like to reiterate that you are most definitely an asset to Wikipedia; it's just I have some experience concerns regarding AIV and RPP. Tommy! [message] 17:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Per above. Concerns with the answers to questions, fairly recent AE block, and minimal experience in administrative areas. You're a fantastic editor, but I think you would benefit from a little more experience. Sorry, FASTILY (TALK) 18:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    12.5 months is fairly recent now? NW (Talk) 19:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Oppose Per Salvio and Fastily. 60 edits to AIV as well as 13 to RFPP are simply no where near enough to show me that you have enough experience if you plan on working in those areas with the tools. That last (and only) block also scares me a bit. It's over a year ago so enough time has passed to not make me scared in that respect but the nature of it is a bit worrying. The fact that you were blocked in the first place, arbitration enforcement, is not a good thing at all. I look forward to seeing you re-submit another RFA in say 3-6 months and if you stay on the track that you currently are on, expect to see me in the support column :)--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 20:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a note wrt RFPP I sometimes post to WT:MED or make direct requests to admins who edit medical topics. Thus these number we collect are not completely accurate. I do however appreciate your encouragement.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for letting me know :) In that case I'll scratch out the RFPP part. I wish that I could support you but there are just too many red flags that I see. I do look forward to seeing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jmh649 2 up and running in 3-6 months like I said :)--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 21:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Oppose, Candidate shows continued propensity towards edit warring, although seems to be more careful not to cross the “electric fence” [13][14][15], with a recent involvement in an edit war, barely avoiding being blocked: [16]. This editor has recent complaints that he doesn’t use edit summaries properly: [17]. Candidate has misrepresented facts and issues in a recent TM ArbCom case and fails to assume good faith, one of the most obvious misrepresentations being his identification of me as being an editor who “primarily edits TM articles” [18]– patently untrue, and obvious to anyone who bothers to even glance at my editing history . Shows a lack of judgment on the part of the candidate. Additionally, per Skinwalker and Salvio, this user has had virtually no experience in administrative areas. Needs a lot more experience in admin areas to show he understands and is able to properly judge administrative situations. Dreadstar ☥ 22:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view those edits to Transcendental mediation are not revisions of the same content and are seperated by several days. The aim of the Transcendental meditation movement is to establish a new world system based on meditation, so not exactly the easiest subject matters to edit. I think that it is a positive attribute that he is engaging prodtuctively in some of the most controversial and hostile editing environments where many admins would run a mile.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring 80% of my argument and focusing on what appears to be solely an "anti-TM" POV doesn't come even close to answering my objections (" establish a new world system based on meditation", really?) From what I'v seen Doc is a POV-edit-warrior, who admits he "won't back down" (eg. ignoring and de-valuing WP:CON}, and one who has been admittedly subjected to a Lawsuit regarding his edits to Wikipedia. Apologies if I don't agree with your evaluation. Dreadstar ☥ 03:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is true that the transcendental meditation movement has a World Plan; see this, TM_organizations#World_Plan_Executive_Council. I am not sure if you have read sourcing guidelines such as WP:MEDRS for medical articles but you will see that high quality reviews of studies is prefered to single studies. It is unfortunate that you are misinterpreting efforts in controversial articles which have ownership issues as examples of POV pushing when it is just a matter of trying to eliminate bias and bring articles up to the standards of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE by following WP:MEDRS.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Dreadstar well aware of were you stand on the issue of Transcendental Meditation. Not really the place thus crossed out.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Doc, this is exactly what I'm talking about, you have no idea where I stand on the issue of Transcendental Meditation. Never once had I made any comment on where I stand on TM, I've only made comments on editor behavior and Wikipeida Policy regarding the subject, yet somehow you twist my involvement into an "issue" where you are "well aware" of where I stand on a subject, which is impossible for you to have determined. If so, then I challenge you to provide the diffs where I proclaim my stance on the subject of TM - with the exception of my surprise in my edit above that TM's objective is a "new world order". Your comment is only additional proof of your own POV editing and misrepresentation of what other editors say and do. This further underlines my statement that this editor is not admin material at this time. Dreadstar ☥ 03:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the suspicion of where you stand is coming from on the subject matter may in part be due to you mislabeling attempts to bring balance, per WP:NPOV to a biased article by following sourcing standards for medical articles or medical content/claims as POV pushing. In my view the opposite is the case, Doc James is struggling against POV pushers. Please remember balance is not determined, per WP:UNDUE, by giving equal weight to fringe viewpoints but rather by independent high quality reviews and systematic reviews of the medical literature. Additionally editors have made claims that you have problematic behaviour in articles related to fringe and dubious scientific claims. None of us are perfect and I am not saying you do not contribute productively to the encylopedia, I just feel that you are taking things out of context, which is unfortunate.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the RfC regarding the Rorschach test [19]. The Wikipedia community was strongly for the inclusion of the ink blots. An editor who disagreed with this consensus filled legal proceeding against me as I supported this consensus. I am not going to back due from ludicrous legal attacks which attempt to infringe on the rights of works in the public domain or my freedom of speech. Wikipedia also received legal threats during this excitement. Thankfully Mike Godwin decided to not back down either. With respect to the rest of it the ArbCom case outlines the evidence [20] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The TM-Org affiliated editors were santioned at AE for edit-warring, not DocJames, over the cited edits at the TM article, and the other involved editor, not DocJames, were blocked for edit-warring at the Abortion article. The cited diff states that the Admin reverted the reverts of Doc's edits, and that Doc's reverts in that article were "essentially productive rather than disruptive." Anyone who reads the cited diffs can come to their own conclusion as to who is misrepresenting facts and issues, failing to assume good faith, and shows a lack of judgment. What the diffs say to me is that Doc is able to inject himself into a highly contentious editing environment where other editors are engaged in an edit war, even without Admin tools, and calmly handle those issues and editors in a manner that is productive without crossing the line into disruption - exactly what we want from an Admin, unlike those who have a meltdown when they don't get their way on Wikipedia. Fladrif (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment above and Doc's reference to Dreadstar are pertinent examples of an editor who does not have the Wikipedia maturity to be trusted with tools that would give him power over other ediotrs as an admin eventually has. His "smart" reply to an editor above during a RfAdminship does not reflect well on an editor who is attempting to prove his maturity in an area that can require ability to collaborate well in conflict situations. Further, the AE that Doc refers to will be appealed for serious concerns in procedure, and for the fact that information presented by Doc on me was false. He says I was warned when in fact, he issued a bogus warnig to me when he had moved content in contentious article without discussion, and I had simply moved it back in place requesting he discuss first. [21] [22]. He also requested I be sanctioned for reverting against consensus and edit warring in an RfC that was never closed and in which no consensus was declared except by Doc himself. Further, I explicitely told Doc on the talk page to revert me I would only revert once. Taking an editor to AE and requesting that editor be sanctioned for I revert, and calling that edit warring is a lapse in judgment at best, and using a bogus warning to implicate that editor is a serious misrepresentation.(olive (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    I don't think that it is as simple as that and I feel that you are omitting a lot of background edit warring. For example arbcom found that you and another editor were tag team edit warring which lead to you and the other editor being placed on an indefinite editing restriction and yet another editor was topic banned for 2 months and placed on the same editting restriction for stone walling consensus building and tag team edit warring. This is the reality of the editing environment that Doc James has stepped into to try and produce a balanced and good quality encyclopedic article. Previously the article was written like an advertisement for transcendental meditation, with a range of biased distortions of the medical literature.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Quite simply, I feel his temperament when dealing with others is unsatisfactory. His snide remark and accusation of bias on Dreadstar's part is, in my opinion, inappropriate —Dark 08:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your viewpoint and right to oppose but the remark was not a snide remark or random accusation of bias. Just one example, Dreadstar's statement to ArbCom claims that Transcendental meditation editors are not the problem or explains away and tries to justify their misconduct Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Statement_by_Dreadstar and claims the problem lies with editors who are challenging them. Evidence submitted to the ArbCom by other editors if anything came to the opposite conclusion.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You've missed my point. If there is bias on Dreadstar's part, it is inappropriate for the candidate to discredit him. —Dark 11:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh right, yes sorry, I understand your point now. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While this is not the place to go into it further, Literaturegeek you are laying out multiple inaccurate and false information points on multiple editors and do so with out diffs as proof. This is unfortunate as it only muddies the waters here, when clarity is of essence. This is about Doc James, and name calling and false accusations are not fair to Doc or to those editors.(olive (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am confused???? I did add a link to DreadStars statement and see nothing inaccurate in what I said. Please try to accept that I do not agree with you and lets not engage in back and forth bickering. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No Lituraturegeek, you're wrong on many points and while I agree bickering isn't appropriate, I'm also tired of untruths and misrepresentations. Tarring editors with misinformation and untruth is not a disagreement, its wrong. (olive (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    I to am tired of untruths, misrepresentations, misinformation to tar and feather a great adminship candidate, by Transcendental Meditation advocates. I have said nothing untrue and have linked to my claims. This is an adminship request, not a TM campaign page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Literaguregeek's assessment is 100% correct. At least three uninvolved administrators expressed strong agreement with the AE sanctions against the TM Editors. [23][24][25] Olive's and Dreadstar's objections to Doc's candidacy strike me as yet more sour grapes for him having commenced a successful AE. Fladrif (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The situation here is that this is a request by an editor for administration status. Such a candidate must expect that his activities and interactions on all articles will be scrutinized. The candidate generally can expect opposes and supports, and can expect that editors will have varying opinions about him/her. While any opinion might be questioned what should not happen here is that editors are attacked for expressing those opinions. That's not appropriate nor fair and makes a hash of this process. So thanks, but please, no more comments about the the editors commenting here.(olive (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    Well, I have been attacked by you and labeled as spreading falsehoods, misleading editors etc etc which forces other editors to defend themselves against your tenditious arguing. Please see, WP:DISRUPT, WP:BATTLE as well as soap boxing. Your not letting this drop may very well backfire as it will show editors, just what Doc James is dealing with on these articles. Give it a rest, you have said your piece and so have I.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I do not support people who have been subject to arbitral sanctions (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Jmh649) and who use their user page for advocacy or divisive content of any sort. This does not rule out that Jmh649 may become a good admin in areas unrelated to topics he feels strongly about, but these are just two huge red flags for me.  Sandstein  20:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To which content on the user page do you refer? Most of that stuff looks pretty uncontroversial, including the stuff on libel law overreach. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The box with this logo. It's not very controversial ... unless you are the party on the other side of that lawsuit, and it's not the purpose of Wikipedia or its admins to publicly take sides in divisive lawsuits. I guess I even agree with the sentiment as a matter of policy - but it's still in-your-face advocacy, which is what Wikipedia is not for, especially not by admins.  Sandstein  08:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I can't support a candidate that has had sanctions of this nature levied against him or her in arbitration. Per Sandstein, I feel it's too much of a red flag. Vodello (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Those issues are all 15-24 months old. In addition, the content that Doc James was working on still stands today, over a year later. How long should we hold something like this against an editor, especially if they show no signs of having repeated mistakes they made quite a bit earlier in their Wikipedia-career. It took us six months to forgive an admin who knowingly shared his password with another user. Should we hold minor content disputes stretching back three times as long as that against someone? NW (Talk) 01:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Oppose I am an editor with limited experience and am not familiar with requirements for becoming an administrator. However, my interactions with the candidate in editing articles related to Transcendental Meditation left me with a strong impression that his content POV was negative and that he was willing to twist the rules and to use bullying tactics to get his way. This does not bode well for a candidate for administrator in my book.ChemistryProf (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose While we appreciate Doc's service to Wikipedia, I feel he does not have the quality of heart to be an administrator. I found him lacking in grace and respect in his interpersonal skills, and at times to be a bully. Perhaps in time, if these attributes can develop he will gain my support as a candidate for administrator. For now, I cannot support his application. --BwB (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think to be for the spirit of openess to give the community a clear picture you should have declared what topic area you have interacted with Doc James on, i.e. you have been heavily involved in the Transcendental Meditation dispute as well as the subsequent Transcendental Meditation arbitration.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak Oppose Largely per Sandstein. I am impressed by your content work, but am concerned that you may stray too much into advocacy, especially given the administrative areas you wish to work in. Your answer to Q6 in particular gave me the impression that you might use the block button for advocacy. However, I would not be adverse to supporting you in the future if you were to gain experience in other admin related areas, such as deletion. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 15:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Oppose. At this time I cannot support Doc James' candidacy, because of his simplistic, close-minded view of science and the scientific method, particularly as it applies to alternative health modalities. My own brief interaction with Doc James was in the context of the Transcendental Meditation ArbCom proceeding. For anyone interested in the details, here is where I laid out a proposal for breaking the logjam on one of the most contentious scientific issues (TM versus ordinary rest): [26] [27] Doc James' response was courteous but disappointing and unhelpful. He seemed not to understand the deeper issues involved and he chose to respond in a way that was partisan and one-sided: [28] Clearly Doc James is energetic and resourceful and I think that, as he gains more maturity and a broader perspective on what constitutes legitimate science, he should be reconsidered at a later date.Hickorybark (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a content dispute that is affecting an RFA (ditto for the four other editors who opposed on the basis of transcendental meditation); a brief association in a single topic area posting a comment that shows little awareness of the implications of WP:UNDUE, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, seems a bit much for a strong oppose. In my opinion DocJames comment is cogent, makes ample sense according to a very standard interpretation of the scientific method (a single study with a low N doesn't allow for vast conclusions to be drawn - extreme claims require extreme proofs). Alternative health claims are notoriously subject to overselling, an aversion to quality research and subject to exactly the same scientific method as all other empirical claims. That Doc James politely disagreed with you on both the implications of a single study and the meaning of a policy is not a reason to oppose when the substantive issues facing an administrator are the interpretation of policies and use of tools. Could you clarify how you think he would misuse the tools given to an admin, or how policies have been misinterpreted? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, 30% of the "Oppose" comments are from editors who are essentially SPA's, 38% if you add their "guardian angel". Fladrif (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If that ad hominem remark is aimed at me, Fladrif, I ask you to retract it, since it is false and slanderous. Hickorybark (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @WLU. My concern is that Doc James is aggressively partisan and will misuse his Adminstrative powers to advance his agenda. The reason this isn't obvious to you is because you share the same agenda: "Alternative health claims are notoriously subject to overselling, an aversion to quality research ..." is not NPOV. The study I cited was not making an extreme claim and the number of subjects involved is reasonable and typical for the field. Moreover, Doc James' overriding the judgment of the journal editors and reviewers concerning the quality of this and related research constitutes original research on Doc James' part. This is not a characteristic which leads me to have confidence in him as an Administrator, at this time. But the greatest concern about that particular incident is that Doc James chose to respond in a partisan manner, rather than consider the deeper issue I had raised which might have been the basis for an intelligent, consensual approach to resolving a deep-seated point of contention and misunderstanding in the TM-related editing. In my observation, Doc James has not shown good judgment. That said, I recognize that he has significant abilities, and I could reconsider my opposition at a later date, if he becomes more fair-minded and less partisan in the meantime. Hickorybark (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an incredibly strong statement to make, an administrator using their tools to secure their preferred version during a subject matter dispute is a very strong accusation of bad faith given how often and strongly it is stated that administrators are not to do so. If you are concerned about this, you should ask the candidate what an appropriate use of administrative tools is during a content dispute. It is not a statement to make idly and essentially conveys the idea that the candidate is too stupid to realize just how serious an issue this would be. The real issue is - during content disputes, how does Doc reference the policies and guidelines? Does he cite reliable sources? Does he justify his edits to RS and policies and guidelines? Understand that NPOV doesn't mean "not critical", it means the sources used must be reliable and have appropriate WP:PARITY.
    Thanks for your suggestions, but I don't need to ask Doc James what he would do, since I've seen for myself how he conducts himself. He fights to win in content disputes and is not too scrupulous about how he does it. For example, he just moved to have two reasonable editors sanctioned rather than working with them to find a consensus. This aggressiveness, combined with his simplistic view of scientific legitimacy, makes it inappropriate for him to be an Administrator at this time, in my view. Hickorybark (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The importing of a content dispute to an RFA, where the "oppose" editors appear to disagree with the potential's content edits without reference to the real substance of adminship - sources and policies to navigate disagreements - is inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You made this claim above and I addressed it. The issues are conduct, judgment and maturity. From what I've seen, Doc James is not ready for this level of responsibility. Hickorybark (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong oppose My opposition is based on his wrong judgment in one dispute that I had with him about Transcendental Meditation. Because it was about NPOV, the most important policy of Wikipedia, I feel it is sufficient for a strong oppose. Doc James says that his approach in a dispute is to focus on the best sources available. In the case of Transcendental Meditation, these "best sources" were five systematic reviews on meditation (see [29] -- there are seven citations, but the Ospina meta-analysys is cited three times). The lead authors were Ospina, Krisanaprakornkit (for two reviews) and Canter (for two reviews). Despite attempts to include other sources (for example see Talk:Transcendental_Meditation#Adding_Anderson_meta-analysis), after his edits and his influence on other editors, only these sources were used to present research on transcendental meditation in the Intro. These sources all had a similar POV, which is essentially that meditation in general is not better than health education or relaxation. A different POV, which was presented in recent systematic reviews published in peer-reviewed journals, was totally suppressed was totally suppressed from the Intro. This other POV is that transcendental meditation and other meditations have a significant effect on blood pressure and other health or physiological measures. If you do a search for meditation meta-analysis OR review (or for "transcendental meditation" meta-analysis OR review) in Google Scholar [30], the "best reviews" of Doc James does not appear so early: even after about 18 pages (180 entries), you don't see the ospina review. On the other hand, there are many other systematic reviews that present the other POV (positive toward TM) in the first pages. For example, one of these systematic reviews was published in 2008 by Anderson et al. in the American Journal of Hypertension, which has a good impact factor (ranked fifth amongst the journals on hypertension). This review, which considered 9 studies (Random Control Trials) with seven of them controlling for health education, concluded that TM has a significant clinical effect on blood pressure. However, Doc James insisted that it is not necessary to include this other POV because the "best sources" were already taken into account. He and his fellow editors discredited Anderson meta-analysis because Anderson, one of the three authors, declared some partial funding from a TM related source. This is a personal judgment. The source of funding constitute only one of the many possible source of bias. The authors of the "best sources" of Doc James can also be biased in different ways. All of this is weighted by the referees and the editors. This partial TM funding has not been the subject of a controversy at all. Even though Doc James' judgment was indirectly supported by two external contributors in a Rfc, this does not make it NPOV. I found strange that one of the two external contributors insisted very much that his support in the Rfc was toward Doc James version, which only included the so called "best sources". After he was presented Anderson 2008 review (and knew about the partial TM funding), one external contributor in a Rfc said that he had no strong opinion about whether we should mention in the Intro. What? No strong opinion? It is a violation of NPOV because the effect of TM on blood pressure is one of the most prominent POV on the subject with many studies and at the least two systematic reviews in peer-reviewed journals supporting it. Some scientific TV programs reported it together with many other benefits. For example, see [31]. The effect of TM on other aspects of health and well being such as reduction of anxiety is also well sourced. It is completely non sense that we totally suppress such a prominent POV in the Intro. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Anderson study and its conclusions are commented on in the body of the article and I support its inclusion there.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was clear that I was talking about the Intro, but I made sure that no misinterpretation is possible (see strikeout above). As far as the article is concerned, the emphasis that you put on the partial funding is an unfair presentation of Anderson systematic review. It is not a controversy in any independent source. You only took an ordinary acknowledgement of funding in the paper and you present it as if it was an important controversy. You are implying that it is an important source of bias specific to that paper, as if your "best sources" could not have their own sources of bias. This is a violation of WP:NOR. If this partial funding is worth mentioning as a source of bias, you should not present it in the voice of Wikipedia but have it said in the voice of some notable source that actually said it. This is only one of the many ways you are not impartial. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing crat: This account was registered on 26 July 2010 and is a Transcendental Meditation SPA, with no edits other than to that article, talk page and related projectspace pages. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Many articles under dispute have self-selected SPA editors on one side and editors that are also self-selected but less easily identified under a given umbrella on the opposing side. One should not use ad hominem arguments against the SPA side. Self-selected editors such as Doc James on the opposing side can also be biased. They can be under the influence of irrational fear, scepticism, financial interests, etc., who knows what? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Raising such smears without a shred of proof is a common tactic. Perhaps it's more likely SPA editors might be "under the influence of irrational fear, scepticism, financial interests, etc., who knows what" as well? It is hardly surprising that editors who edit only a single topic in an coordinated manner will also "pile-on" to pursue a vendetta against someone who was brave enough to oppose them in their own topic area. The only way Doc James was "self-selected" is that he chooses to defend Wikipedia against wilful misuse of questionable sources. --RexxS (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I suggest that we look at the evidence presented in the oppose statements, especially evidence of policy violation based on the actual content of articles. I agree that it makes no sense to base our evaluation on presumption of bad faith, influence of fear or whatever, but my point is that this applies to both sides, including the SPA side. Please, again, let us avoid ad hominem arguments and focus on the evidence. It takes more time, but the result is worth it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You want to re-run the whole WP:ARBTM case again? As you wish. If you're so keen on examining the evidence, why not start with all of the Evidence presented by Will Beback, where he demonstrates how the TM-editors work together as a team - and highlights the other tactics suggested by Keith Deboer? Of course, this has nothing to do with an RfA, other than to make it clear that a small group of SPA editors from a small geographical location all collaborate to give a false impression of agreement. I hope the closing 'crat will recognise that the pro-TM contributors here are engaging in exactly the same tactics, and weigh their single contribution appropriately. --RexxS (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you look at the decisions from that ArbCom case. Simple. (olive (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    @RexxS, the situation is simple. If there is no violation of NPOV, then by trying to add another POV we are violating WP:DUE, we are the bad guys and Doc James is the protector of NPOV. On the other hand, if there is a violation of NPOV, then Doc James is violating policy and we are just trying to restore it. So any judgment that is not based on a careful analysis of NPOV violation is superficial. Someone told me that we do not evaluate NPOV violation in an RFA because it requires that we look at the content. If that is the case, then the whole discussion here is pointless. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The strikeout is because I realised that it was not useful to make a reference here to the way editors can attack or judge other editors when they are in a dispute. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Littleolive oil: May I assume that comment is directed to the person who opened the can of worms? After all, Edith is the one who is insisting on examining the evidence, rather than the decision which passed no comment on Doc James. I do note though, that on that exact decision page there is record of ArbCom Enforcement, placing yourself, Edith and TimidGuy on a "collective 1RR/24hrs revert restriction" to stop tag-team reverts --RexxS (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot answer for Olive, but since this concerns me I would like to make three points. First, the only thing I did is to provide evidence for an ongoing violation of NPOV, which is a content policy. It does not matter who provides the evidence. The evidence stands by itself, independently from me, and people can look at it and decide for themselves. So, my status in Wikipedia is irrelevant. Second, if an ongoing violation of a content policy is not a criteria in a RFA, I was not aware of that and I assume my oppose statement will be ignored. I just felt it was not only relevant, but even important that an admin does not violate a content policy. However, I could be wrong. It is not me that decides what is important in a RFA. Finally, third, I did not consider the old Arb request because I was not there and I felt an ongoing violation of policy is much more relevant. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Edith Sirius Lee, it is clear that you (and Transcendental Meditation editors) oppose Jmh (which says much); would you mind taking this to talk? Nothing is to be gained now by continuing this on the RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What? If people comment here, I reply here. Please tell people to comment on my oppose statement in the talk if you want that I reply in the talk. Also, it is not important that I, as an individual editor, oppose Jmh. It is the evidence that matters. I am happy to let people judge for themselves. I do not expect anyone to rely on my personal judgment. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Any further comments from Edith or directed towards Edith by other editors will be moved to the talk page. If anyone disagees with this, it will need to be discussed on admin noticeboard as the disruption needs stopped.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Oppose: I do not support this application because Jmh649 is a controversial editor with a history of disruptive behavior who lacks the judgment and neutrality needed to be a good Admin.
    1) It seems that even his nominator feels that there is a chance Jmh649 will abuse his tools. “I think the tools will be very useful in his ongoing contributions to Wikipedia, and I think it highly unlikely that he will abuse them.”
    2) Jmh649 is already a subject of strong controversy on this page
    3) He says he has been involved in “legal attacks, I just finished one that lasted 6 months with respect to my editing of Wikipedia” [32]
    4) He says “I have edited many controversial articles and have had my share of mud thrown at me” [33]
    5)He has been involved in two Arb Coms and was found guilty of: edit warring, un-civil behavior and the “personalizing of editorial disputes”. As a result, Jmn649 received a 6 month editing restriction in July 2009 [34]
    6) He violated the his ArbCom sanctions after returning form his first block and was blocked again.[35]
    7) Then more edit warring on a new article. [36]
    8) More recently he gives the message to an editor who opposes his edits: “consider yourself warned”[37]
    These indicate to me that he is not a balanced, neutral editor and should not be empowered with Administrative tools. In addition, I have the feeling when I read his answers to the Admin questions above (and on the TM ArbCom) that he is being coached or that he is parroting what he has heard from others and does not have a true understanding of Wiki policies and Wiki Admin policies.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, another editor who was involved in the TM ArbCom case casting his first RFA !vote. You are incorrect. DocJames has only been blocked once, for 48 hours, over a year ago.[38] And the 3RR warning you link to seems to have been triggered by a single revert, which most wouldn't call "edit warring".   Will Beback  talk  18:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to clarify: Doc James was also part of the TM Arb case as was Will Beback. There were no sanctions to any editors, (one so-called, non-TM editor was admonished and restricted), and all editors including Doc James and Will Beback were equally included in the Arb decision. Further, Doc James did indeed use a single revert to cite edit warring, and used that as a situation to try and have an editor sanctioned. (olive (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    I think that everyone understands what Will meant. TM-Movement affiliated editors/SPA's account for 40% of the "Oppose" votes so far. Five of them were parties to the TM ArbCom, a sixth is a SPA who began editing under that name less than a month ago. Olive, Edith and one other such editor who has not weighed in here, are subject to current sanctions as a result of violating that ArbCom, following an AE commenced by DocJames. Other than olive voting in favor of Dreadstar's RFA, I do not believe that she, or any of the other five TM editors/SPA's who have weighed in here, have previously voted in a RFA. Fladrif (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See my reply here. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Obviously I am wasting my time, as the bureaucrats only use their discretion to pass candidates slightly under the 75% threshold, not to fail candidates slightly over it. I accept that this user edits in a particularly contentious field. But the record of uncollabourative editing entirely vindicates my explicit and much discussed "neutral for now" in this RfA and the one above. The fact that this editor was wrongly sued does not necessarily mean that he will make a good admin. The tendency towards edit-warring, in matters varying from the well-meaning and constructive to the absolutely pointless (see oppose 5 for diffs), suggest that he will not. --WFC-- 19:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose, from Neutral. I'm not interested in Transcendental Meditation and haven't edited in that area, but like WFC above, I've come to the conclusion that I can't endorse Jmh649 getting the tools at this time. I just feel, from the evidence in this RFA, that he doesn't have the right attitude or communication skills to be an administrator. I admire him for his contributions and his trying to enforce NPOV in a difficult area, but I don't think he's admin material at this time. Robofish (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per WFC and Robofish above. The candidate has such a strongly held point of view that he sometimes deliberately misrepresents sources. For example, here he writes that TM worsens high blood pressure [39], but the source he used (Ospina 2007) says in the Results section of the abstract (p. v)[40] that TM lowers blood pressure. This review has 5 meta-analyses on TM and blood pressure; three show lowering, two show no effect compared to controls. None shows a worsening. How could this edit have been inadvertent? And if an editor respects the mission of Wikipedia, why would he do something like this? TimidGuy (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Now we have all of the TM Editors who are under sanctions as a result of the AE which Doc started. AE saw things rather differently when it comes to summarizing sources: What I see on Talk:Transcendental Meditation is a persistent effort, mostly by TimidGuy, to block consensus by an endless row of objections of wikilawyering and nitpicking nature, aimed at deemphasizing the findings of studies critical of TM. Many of these objections, mostly about the correctness of summaries of the research literature proposed by other editors, appear to be patently without merit. [41] As Doc explained, but TG omits, reducing blood pressure in patients who are not hypertensive does not improve blood pressure, it worsens it. Fladrif (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One should read a whole article rather than just the abstract, because it's actually quite complicated (refer to page 166 of the document itself - 181 in the PDF - for the actual data). This comment also ignores Doc James later edit which removes any health-related implications by removing "hypertensive" from the article and the statement "The combined estimate of changes in SBP (mm Hg) showed a small, but nonsignificant improvement (reduction) in favor of [no treatment]" from the paper itself. Indeed, this is equivocal support for TM increasing blood pressure in the nonhypertensive. In addition, the initial edit and later correction took place within minutes. Are there any admin-related issues here? Were policies egregiously misapplied? Was there a significant violation of WP:CIVIL? Adminship is not about content - it's about process and policies. DocJames replacement of a primary source with a review in that very edit, which is an indication of an appreciation for policies. So it's actually a reason to support his adminship, not oppose it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 15 studies on TM and blood pressure in that review, all showing either a statistically significant improvement, or no statistically significant effect. The candidate found the one study in 15 that showed a nonsignificant increase in blood pressure and wrote in the TM article, "Studies have suggested either a cause-effect relationship or a positive correlation between practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique and changes in health-related physiological states, including: increased blood pressure." I do see an Admin issue here -- a lack of integrity. TimidGuy (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's worthwhile to revisit the TM case here, and the closing bureaucrat will not overlook the fact that several of those opposing this candidacy were involved in an arbitration case filed by the candidate. The extended discussions on this is becoming quite distracting. –xenotalk 13:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate filed an AE case in which there were concerns with process per the Arbitration, and in which information presented by the candidate indicated a lack of inexperience, a concern for an admin. Some decisions from the AE case will be appealed.(olive (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    Xeno, is an admin and bureaucrat and has voiced his view that this conversation should come to an end. As I said to Edith, if the disruption to this adminship request continues it may require reporting to the admin noticeboard. Everyone is aware of your viewpoints, repeating them is just sounding like a broken record. Sorry to be blunt. If you really must continue this conversation then please use the talk page to continue it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note I have expressed my view in my capacity as an editor and RFA participant, not administrator nor bureaucrat. Expanded on talk page. –xenotalk 19:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, have struck wording that implied you were commenting as an admin.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose I find Doc James to be someone who has been involved in quite a lot of controversy in a relatively brief time span, i.e., the Rorschach test situation, Arbitration cases in Transcendental Meditation, has been admonished, and has been blocked. That in itself does not make him an ideal candidate. My reaction in reading the neutral replies he presented in support of his nomination, was that they are not like the Doc James I see in the talk pages. There, he is often aggressive [42], [43], [44], stubborn, and flippant. (He continues to argue his point, regardless of evidence [45]). To me these are the traits of someone who still has some maturing to do. Therefore, I do not feel he is yet ready to be an Administrator.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral - X!s edit counter....disabled. Can't review contributions to wikispace easily now. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Have made nearly 27,000 edits. Primarily to the main space. You can use Wikichecker as a backup. [46] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See also. SwarmTalk 09:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiChecker seems down (at least for me). Could you enable X!'s counter, at least for the period of this RFA? Regards SoWhy 09:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    X! disabled it himself, this isn't Doc's work. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, I had a cached version of the page somehow. I apologize. Regards SoWhy 11:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are other tools that provide almost identical identical information to X's. --Kudpung (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, to tag onto my current neutral, I'm stuck. It's clear that you're a fantastic contributor. You have GAs, you've clearly been active at the medical areas of wikipedia. I think you'd make good use of the tools for the redirect/deletion area, as long as you have the wide consensus of the medical community. However, your answer to question 1 basically hints at work at WP:AIV and WP:RPP and you have 60 and 13 edits respectively in these areas. This for me, isn't enough experience. I'll remain neutral for now, so my apologies, but you are a great contributor, so congrats on that. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This disgust me. This is not why I disabled my edit counter. I disabled it so people would actually bother to look at the contributions (god forbid) instead of just making a snap decision with an edit counter. Actually making a decision based on the lack of an edit counter? What if the database was down? What if my account expired? You really cannot rely on this tool like this! There must be other ways, and I hope that you see the light before I reenable the tool next Tuesday. (X! · talk)  · @931  ·  21:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 I'm not totally sure X! should renenable it tbh. James (T C) 00:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I liked the edit counter; i used it to navigate editing patterns. Based on this vote and the ones below from Mono and WFC i have to agree making people use that first grade skill of counting for themselves, and as a by-product actually end up reading some of the edits, would be a good thing. However there are other edit count tools floating around and being too lazy to use any of them is the poorest excuse to vote neutral one could give. Adding on legitimate reasons instead of replacing your initial reason doesn't read too well. One could be witty and claim that all voting rationales at this time are probably original research :P delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 21:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit counter may be turned back on around Aug 17th which will give everyone who has remained neutral due to an inability to use it time to look at my edit history. I hope all who wish to will reconsider at that point in time. Cheers.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Boo hoo hoo! I'm not bothered about overall post count. That's not what I'm making the point about the edit counter for. However, experience in admin areas that the user wishes to work in is a valid reason for wanting to see the edit counter. Inexperienced editors would therefore be outed by the edit counter and give people a better idea whether to vote support or oppose. The two alternatives posted above don't give that option and searching through 27,000 edits to manually count edits to the likes of AIV and RPP.....yeah....people aren't going to do that.
    Now if you look above at the questions, you'll notice that I DID manually go through and ask a question based on that; not that you've noticed whilst having your little hissy fit, X. Now, the original point was merely an investigatory-prompting comment, wanting to prompt comments from others as to why it was turned off. The real neutral criteria from me is above and I stick by that. I believe the candidate is a well-experienced individual, but doesn't have the necessary experience in the admin areas that are set out to be worked in, in the future. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I'm not impressed with the candidate's answers so far, but I haven't seen evidence that the candidate would be a detriment to Wikipedia if they had the tools yet. Doc Quintana (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral – I'm not really sure whether to oppose or support, but I really would like to support. User in question has been in arbitration one time in 2009, which led to his 48 hour long block in July that year. His edit restrictions were revert-related, with only one revert per page per week. On the other hand, this user has made almost 30000 contributions to the English Wikipedia. I take the safest by going with neutral. /HeyMid (contributions) 12:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral (I explained elsewhere why I don't feel a strong obligation to vote support or oppose), though I am not impressed by the answers. IMHO, there are several cases where blocks are given without the total 4 warnings, there are cases of IPs blocked for >1 year (though sporadic), and cases of links being blacklisted even though there is only one editor using that specific link in its sole edit. You seem to know policy and guideline well, or read them well, but also there WP:IAR needs to be used to apply exceptions to the cold rules that are laid forward. I've not seen the imagination necessary to see that cases can be so blatant that waiting to handle is a waste of time, or see further than the one edit that is evaluated, which even (may) result in continuing damage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Some of the answers aren't complete (for example, Q6). Good work writing, though. —fetch·comms 16:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral X!'s edit counter was a good place to get ideas of the pages and areas we need to look out for. As such, I will not support any candidacy started between the 13th and the 17th, because doing enough research to be confident that a candidate passes would involve an unreasonable amount of work. If it were disabled permanently I would obviously have to reconsider my position, but my belief is that doing so would enhance the weight given to diffs that may or may not be isolated incidents. In answer to the rationale for the pause, I would say that even as a regular in the unpopular column, opposes based solely on editcountitis can be, should be and are already ignored by crats. --WFC-- 18:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to oppose. --WFC-- 18:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. I've been arguing for less stringent RFA criteria recently, but the block appears to be alarming, so I can't support. Esteffect (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding arbitration sanctions to my reasons for neutrality, and leaning toward oppose somewhat. Esteffect (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I like the contributions, but I can't support because of your too recent block. Sorry. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 00:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't that block over a year ago?   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, this is really sad, people refusing to support because someone else's tool is down and the candidate was blocked for 48 hours over a year ago. Perhaps some of you are not aware that we had RFA before that particular tool even existed. I know, that must have been like, when cavemen walked the earth with their stone-and-twig laptops... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral, leaning support. Your contributions are excellent, but the edit warring is a little troublesome. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I will not support a candidate until I can fully analyze their edit count.  ℳono  07:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can sympathise with that, I recently met an oldtime wikipedian who told me he stopped !voting at RFA when we started getting candidates with over 2,000 edits because it took to long to analyse them. May I suggest you do what I do and only check a sample? ϢereSpielChequers 13:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral leaning oppose The candidate has been around a long time and has >27,000 edits; however, the legal trouble involving Rorschach test, a 48-hour block in July 2009, and some pretty basic grammatical and syntactical errors (e.g. spelling the word grammar-->"grammer") causes me to have concerns.--Hokeman (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks, plural? Hordaland (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've checked, the candidate still only has one block from over a year ago and no recent blocks. ϢereSpielChequers 14:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral for now I don't normally go neutral, but I'm really not sure about this one. This user is clearly an excellent content contributor, and we should all be thankful for that; but I'm not quite sure if he has the right attitude to be an administrator. I'm not too impressed by edits like this one to this RFA[47] (although he has now retracted it), and he doesn't use edit summaries as much as I'd like to see. I haven't seen anything serious enough to rule him out from being an admin, but I haven't seen anything that gives me great confidence in him as one either. Robofish (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to Oppose. Robofish (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral leaning oppose. Normally, I would very much like to support a candidate with a background editing in controversial medical topics. But when I look at the ArbCom restrictions, I see cause for concern that we could have the kinds of conduct issues that make me wish we had a better recall process. I don't buy the argument that this was a while ago so it shouldn't matter. One doesn't get to the point of being restricted by ArbCom just by having a bad day. I think the argument often made in RfAs, that something bad doesn't count after some period of time, is one of the least persuasive arguments I've seen. Part of me would really like to have a reason to support. But here is a concrete example where I might support per AGF if we had a better sysop recall process, but I'm not going to support, because we don't. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. There's lots of weak reasons to not support an RFA, but arbitration sanctions is one reason that holds water still. Probably wouldn't be a bad administrator, but I can't support somebody with such history. Esteffect (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented double-!vote. Sorry Esteffect but you were also caller #7 above . Regards SoWhy 21:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So I did, I must be getting confused with there being so many candidates right now! Two different reasons, too. I'll add this reasoning to neutral #1. Esteffect (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral His editing seems to be by-and-large helpful and content-focused; however because of the block and the apparent history of editwarring/near-editwarring I'm not comfortable with supporting at this time. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral - Kudos for the correct answer to what for so many is a great mystery: I interpret IAR to mean that one should use common sense, that one does not need to know all the rules and regulations to begin or to continue contributing to the encyclopedia. Too damned many administrators already, I hope you remain a content creator. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral for now - User seems to have very strong opinions and edits in that nasrrow sphere, it would likely be impossible for the user to use the tools in those fields and I am wondering what the user would do with the tools, I see they would protect articles from vandalism and so on but the user doesn't seem active in these areas and is so involved in his specialist areas I don't see that changing anytime soon. I also would like to know more about these legal issues if possible. Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, that's a very good point Off2riorob. I'll play the optimist here and suggest that possibly being an admin will be incentive for Doc to get involved in other topic areas to a greater degree. You're correct that it would be inappropriate to use the tools in an area where you've had content disputes with the other editors and have made significant contributions. -- Atama頭 16:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I have the details about the legal issue and , touch wood, that could happen to anyone that contributes. although I would like to know a bit more about the nominees feelings as regards his possible anti censorship personal beliefs and the wikipedia's need to err on the side of caution as regards fair use and copyright issues. If the DOC would comment a bit more as to his actual intentions and needs for the tools and that he clearly realizes the possible COI claim if he used them in his chosen fields, eg, transcendental meditation and medicine that would be appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jmh649&oldid=859522791"