Meta:Requests for adminship/Doc James

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Support: 3

Oppose: 9

Neutral: 0 = 25% → no consensus. While people agree that Doc James can be trusted with the tools, most participating in this nomination have expressed their views that the candidate does not meet the general activity criteria expected. —MarcoAurelio 11:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James[edit]

Doc James (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

Ending 4 August 2015 06:59 UTC

I would like to request adminship on Meta. I am an admin on En WP and on Wikivoyage. I have more than 148,000 edits across a lot of projects as listed here [1] of which more than 2500 are on meta. I wish to help keep meta spam free perform other admin tasks as required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I never saw your name on RfC and such, never saw your name commenting on global wiki matters, as meta do have pages that works globally such Spam Blacklist, global userpages, global abusefilter ,etc. I also never saw you do spam fighting like actively tagging for deletion (usually done by SWMT member). Sorry, but I have to oppose this request.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 07:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was very much involved with this one Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide which lead to Wikivoyage. Here is anothers [2]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Allow me to reiterate, what I want to say is, I never saw you doing administrative work on meta as normal user, being admin on meta are totally different than being an admin on project wikis like Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikivoyage etc. You have experience on being an admin on project wiki, but you don't have experience participating on administrative matters on backstage wikis. Try join SWMT or stewards chat you will get experience, once you know the differences I will considering supporting. Cheers~!--AldNonymous^Bicara? 15:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for explaining User:Aldnonymous. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We usually require a substantial amount of deletion taggings before granting adminship for sysops who fight spam/vandalism but I don't see a single deletion tagging in your deleted contribs. For now, can you help with tagging spam pages for deletion and reverting vandalism/spam? Maybe after some time, I could reconsider supporting this request. Also thanks for your other contributions across Wikimedia! --Glaisher (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rather inactive. --MF-W 13:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MF-W --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm going to be contrary, but as a recently elected board member, it makes sense for him to have the sysop flag here. Courcelles 01:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Because board members often use sysop rights for which purposes here? --MF-W 15:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Temporary or by decree is enough just like this Meta:Administrators#Temporary_adminship_or_adminship_by_decree the same as other WMF staff, and it has to be Staff account. This reasoning to give volunteer account an indef/perma admin bits are incorrect.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 17:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If given the tools ~~I may not be the most active Meta admin~~ it appears I would be one of the more active admins and I do believe my history both here and on other wikis provides good evidence I will not misuse the tool. I guess the question is do people require clear evidence of need or simply no evidence of concerns? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kolega2357 (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not due to lack of trust or something, but I think you'd just lose normal adminship in one of the coming removal rounds in April. Maybe temp admin ship for the time of your term in the board or something would be better here. -Barras talk 22:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I can likely continue to bag and plead for help WRT admin issues such as here [3] which was addressed fairly rapidly.
- As you bring up activity levels I have made 443 edits to meta in 2015 and 2562 in total. User:-revi who is a meta admin has made 355 edits in 2015 and 2025 edits in total. User:Herbythyme has made 329 edits in 2015 and didn't edit at all in 2014 on meta. User:MF-Warburg made 435 edits in 2015. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record not only did I not edit in 2014 I was not an admin either. As far as this year's concerned I've been travelling for around 4 of the 7 months of the year, maybe that accounts for my inadequate performance... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Herbythyme I am not giving you are a hard time just noting that many of the admins opposing my nomination based on the justification of insufficient activity are less active than I am. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't blindly count the number without the context. I am busy in real life and I'm on meta on-and-off basis during 2015. My activity will increase by Nov. — regards, Revi 17:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:-revi I am not saying their is anything wrong with your edit count. We are all busy in real life and active across multiple other wikis. And I fully understand that may people edit in bursts. You became an admin with about 1000 edits here [4]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Imho not active enough at meta. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Glaisher. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 04:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Glaisher — regards, Revi 06:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Uğurkent^talk 10:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support temporary adminship until July 2017 (simply because of the Board membership) with the proviso that he exercises due caution with Board-related matters, and with the option of becoming permanent at the end of Board membership. This candidate meets all of the suggested criteria on the adminship policy:

Cross-wiki experience (sysop on two wikis, over 2,000 edits on Commons) ✓Y
User page on Meta ✓Y

Link to EN-Wikipedia user page; ✓Y
Links to EN-Wikivoyage and Commons user pages - not essential because you could utilise global user pages

Confirmed email address in preferences. ✓Y
Active contributor on Meta (deeply involved in Wiki Project Med). ✓Y
Has {{#babel}} on user page. ✓Y

I would also support a new global group to identify board members in the same way as OTRS members. It doesn't have to have any particular rights except perhaps something like auto patrolled. Green Giant (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have previous/current Board memebers with access to sysop tools actually used it for Board-related matters? I don't think I've seen that (not saying it hasn't happened - just that I haven't seen it). Also, can someone tell me examples of which actions Board members would do in the capacity of a Board member (if it's needed)? --Glaisher (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here was one [5]. Not really a board issue per say but one that needed dealing with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't supported on the basis that he is a Board member and I don't see why this is an issue for supporting or opposing. Would it have made any difference the other way round, if he was an admin standing for election to the board? I've supported because, as far as I can tell, he meets the policy criteria and he wants to help with admin tasks. I'm not a big fan of edit counts playing a part in RfA's beyond confirming that the applicant is active. As he points out, he isn't likely to be any less active than some existing admins. The proviso I added is no different to the proviso that any admin/crat/CU/OS/steward would refrain from using their tools when they are involved in something etc. I'm not saying there is a specific set of tasks that board members need to perform but for the sake of example, let's say Jimbo is feeling mischievous and uploads an unfree image that is nominated for speedy deletion. I would expect Doc James to refrain from deleting the file and let another admin do it. Highly unlikely scenario but it fits what I would expect of an admin who is also on the Board. Green Giant (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.