Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Jameslwoodward

 Support = 24;  Oppose = 5;  Neutral = 0 - 83% Result: Successful. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward

Vote

Scheduled to end 2015-06-02, towards the end of the day UTC

Links for candidate: Jameslwoodward (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

It is with much pleasure that I present Jameslwoodward (Jim) as a candidate for the role of Bureaucrat on Commons. As regular editors will know, since 2012 Jim has already been trusted with the checkuser tools which I would not expect to interfere much, if at all, with being a 'crat here. Checkuser demonstrates a high level of existing community trust in the candidate, as would be expected of a 'crat. Jim is trustworthy, reliable and experienced. He is one of the most knowledgeable admins who are involved in copyright issues, including deletion and undeletion requests, where he invariably displays a cool temperament with an infinite capacity to be kind, helpful and educational, while not being afraid to take action when the occasion demands it. His mellow approach would be an asset to the 'crat team.

For the background to this proposal see my comments here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Michael. I accept. User:Jameslwoodward summarizes my relevant background and experience. I've been a registered user since 2008, starting mostly on WP:EN, then doing a lot of work on lighthouses and National Register of Historic Places sites, including uploading around 500 of my own photos. I've been an Admin since 2010 and a Checkuser since 2012.

I see the formal role of Bureaucrat as an extension of my ongoing effort to be the voice of calm and reason in our sometimes contentious and difficult atmosphere. I think that the close collaboration of the Checkuser team has made checking sockpuppetry easier. I think that having a team of bureaucrats who have mutual respect and a desire to make Commons work for all but the trolls, can only benefit our project. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support as nominator. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support incredibly diligent and long-term user, always a friendly response provided a friendly request -- Rillke^(q?) 19:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Just the person we need for the job. Natuur12 (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Don't like users holding multiple advanced permissions - admin, checkuser and bureaucrat. It makes separation of roles and activity difficult and means we lose a checkuser and a bureaucrat if the become busy in real life. No issues with the candidate and would have full support otherwise. Nick (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Highly trusted user. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support per above.    FDMS  4    20:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support - hardworking admin and CU. I support users having multiple advanced permissions because if we can trust them with one, why would we not trust them with two or three. In response to the argument of "separation of powers", the original aim of that doctrine was to stop one person holding multiple reins of power over a nation, whereas in Commons there is no limit on how many people could hold these permissions, for example English Wikipedia (a project of similar size and complexity to Commons) has 30+ bureaucrats, 40+ checkusers, 50+ oversighters. If we have more users with such permissions, it will drastically reduce the opportunities for abuse (which is what I think is the real reason some users oppose multiple permissions being given to one person). Green Giant (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Absolutely. With no necessity, and wrongly, called a user a "liar," based on a flawed legal interpretation of a legal case that should have been irrelevant (this was "outing," as well).[1]. Holds and enforces views on bystander selfies that are at odds with WMF legal opinion, case law, and common sense. Not bureaucrat material at all. --Abd (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Abd, as I closely followed the situation he mentions, as well as due to his behaviour over the issue of CheckUser transparency and accountability raised by @Fæ. odder (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I don't see why not. Jim is a knowledgeable admin in the area of copyright and knows how to resolve issues well. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 23:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support. Hard working admin for many years. Even though he is admin for many years he never forget treat properly to newcomers.-- Geagea (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I like the idea "separation of power". But the first thing to do if we want to implement it is to ask odder and Tiptoety to step down from one role. Jee 01:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I see Jameslwoodward's CU experience as asset to the 'crat team. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support--Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support per nom. INeverCry 20:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose – Per Abd and per Jameslwoodward's treatment of Saibo in 2012. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support – A strong contributor to Commons who has earned my trust and respect as an admin, and who I believe will make an effective bureaucrat. CT Cooper · talk 13:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I'm not a fan of combining various flags, but on the other hand Jim will certainly do fine as crat. Trijnstel_talk 18:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support per Rillke --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Rschen7754 04:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I'm not a fan of separation of power. If user has a willing to work on a job and a required skills, why not? — regards, Revi 04:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I like the answer to my question. Taivo (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Absolutely. Эlcobbola _talk 16:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support. Obviously! Érico Wouters (msg) 22:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Nick Ankry (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support - Tiptoety ^talk 01:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Túrelio (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

•  Question Jim, you did not comment in Commons:Requests for comment/Separation of powers. What do you think about separating of three powers? Taivo (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I have added a comment there below the archived section. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Much of the recent drama surrounding the position of bureaucrat on this wiki has centered around local restoration of administrator rights that were removed globally, by stewards or the WMF: i.e. [2][3] [4][5] If a situation like this arose in the future, how would you handle it? --Rschen7754 01:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

First, consult with my fellow 'crats, just as the CU team now consults regularly on anything that is not cut and dried. If we thought that the stewards or WMF were definitely wrong, I think we would start by discussing it with them. I hope that if we create a solid team of well respected bureaucrats here, that the higher powers would pay attention when we called them on issues.

Note that I use "we" throughout the comment above. Unlike the Admin role, which almost always acts rapidly and usually alone, I see the role of a bureaucrat as one of a team that acts with deliberate care -- not necessarily slowly, but in minutes or hours rather than the typical Admin decision which is made in seconds.

Incidentally, I have deliberately not read or voted in any of the other Bureaucrat elections that are going on so that I can answer questions here without using words or thoughts from colleagues. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• 16:13, 29 April 2015 Jameslwoodward (talk | contribs) blocked Dedamisr (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (autoblock disabled) (Inappropriate username)

Question: Can I know what was the problem with this username? --XXN, 19:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This was a representative of www.deda-misr.com, whose edits included the creation of DEDA MISR, which was blatantly promotional. INeverCry 19:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. Now it's clear. --XXN, 20:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)