Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu 4

Docu 4

Manet sitting sideways on chair

Vote

Docu (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 07:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As I was told to do stuff myself rather than asking other volunteers to do it for me: here is my request. This way I can do protected edit requests myself, removing them from the current backlog. Other than that, I try to answer questions on help desk and I categorize primarily images around here (samples: sitting sideways on chair, centered tunnel perspective, west front of Chatsworth House). prev. req. --  Docu  at 07:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Votes

•  Oppose. Keeping all or any experience issues aside, the following makes me want to oppose. 1) You do not show clearly why you need these tools (protection/unprotection of a few files could easily be requested), or where you wish to work. 2) You are mostly focussing on RFA "retries" rather than improving yourself; you haven't met some/most of the requests by other admins at your previous requests. 3) IMHO, an administrator needs to be very friendly, which I do not see in your conversations with other editors. Rehman 09:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - User is clearly not going to misuse or abuse the tools; productivity overrides all other potential downfalls. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose no confidence. Multichill (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Even in benign discourse you take a stubborn Ididnthearthat stance. No thanks. NVO (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose with regret. You are extremely active at Commons and quite familiar with administrative areas. You could certainly use the tools. However, adminship requires also good communication and this appears to be still a problem. In the last run for adminship, Herbythyme missed babel info (essential for multilingual projects as this), email access, and Multichill missed an archive of previous discussions. And I wonder why these obvious points (as they were already raised in the past) are not addressed. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Concerns with ability to communicate. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Fastily's comment above first read "Incoherent stubborn troll." then "Incoherent cocky troll." --  Docu  at 23:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Damn straight it did. In case it wasn't bluntly obvious, I have opted for less abrasive commentary; although of course, if you'd rather I not, I'll gladly restore my original comments. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose - lacks understanding about what we are doing here altogether - Jcb (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The candidate does not understand the importance of Babel boxes or enabling E-mail.[1] E-mail is means whereby a blocked user may request review. It is required.[2] S/he often communicates in a manner that is more likely to cause offense than to lead to understanding.[3] S/he starts disputes over things that don't matter.[4]. Otherwise this is a very capable candidate that I supported in Docu 2. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • On the "lead to understanding" you mention, I think at least Martin H., Wknight89, and possibly yourself learned something about redirects there. At least, the first one extensively commented on the topic, speedy deleted parts of the website, but somehow failed to understand the workings before. --  Docu  at 00:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that the end result was good. But you may have missed the point. You could have achieved the same result without seeming arrogant, patronizing and uncooperative. To be persuasive and effective, it is necessary to be consistently pleasant and helpful, especially when interacting with those who have opposing views. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Support knowledgeable user with a lot of experience and doing a lot of useful work. I think his work would benefit from ability to use tools. --Jarekt (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• User:Docu made three unsuccessful requests by now: 1 (March 2010), 2 (April 2010) and 3 (June 2010). --High Contrast (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Docu, what changed since your last request? Why should you be granted administrator status now? Multichill (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I was asked to do things myself rather than requesting other volunteers to do it. To do protected edits, I have to make this request first. Besides, Abigor who did a fair share of them, has become mostly inactive. --  Docu  at 11:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• I have made a inquiry here, regarding this RfA's title. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 Comment Docu uses his own account for rapid bot edits. He shouldn't do that, I left a note at User talk:Docu#Rapid edits (permalink). Multichill (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)