Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu 2

 Support = 9;  Oppose = 9;  Neutral = 0 - 50% Result. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Docu

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 20:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Primarily to finish cleaning up the Starr batch, most notably, rename a series of files with misleading names. -- User:Docu at 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Votes

•  Oppose Recent request failed. Nothing indicates that concerns there have been addressed. Wknight94 ^talk 12:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I tried to address all concerns raised here. -- User:Docu at 05:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Wknight94 (talk · contribs) that there are still significant concerns from Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu. -- Cirt (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too soon to follow previous request — indicates to me a wrong impression towards tools.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Why do you think my impression toward tools is "wrong"? Merely because I made another request here? -- User:Docu at 12:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing changed. I feel that he fails mellowness. I think he should be more careful about his requests/tools. – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • From this, I take it that "requests/tools" meant these requests. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me and administrator Justass who executed it didn't mind too much. (Thanks BTW). Adding mellowness seems to be me asking about the "requests/tools". I suppose I had to fail that then. -- User:Docu at 05:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support - Could he be a bit more graceful in his interactions? Yeah, probably. I think that in this case, though, granting him the tools would allow him to put his technical knowledge to even better use. I can't see him abusing the bit deliberately, so support from me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support, per Juliancolton. Docu is a hard working and knowledgeable contributor, it would be a shame not to grant him the tools that would allow him to do an even better job. –Tryphon^☂ 15:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too soon, and am concerned about recent poor behaviour in discussions. Orderinchaos (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I happened to disagree with you and Cirt. True. -- User:Docu at 05:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Concerns with judgment, experience, and brief period of time between RfAs. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 16:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Specifically about experience, what do you have in mind? -- User:Docu at 12:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I don't think experience is an issue; Docu is among Commons' most active users, and has been all year. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I was wondering if Fastily meant this. -- User:Docu at 05:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support, per Juliancolton. Yes, interaction with other users is sometimes pointy (I did not like his spat with Lar at all), but this is balanced by a looong and productive history of useful work (nearly 100,000 edits on en:WP since 2002, en:WP admin since 2003, clean block log in en:WP, 50,000+ edits to Commons), which he could do much more effectively if equipped with the tools. Let's give him a chance. --JN466 12:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, still a bit pointy, but I tried to avoid further interaction with said user. -- User:Docu at 05:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support One of the most productive and experienced contributor --Justass (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support per Tryphon and others. We have a number of far less useful admins. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose pending satisfactory answer to my essay question, below. I abstained in the last one but another request less than 6 weeks later? I don't think Docu has the deft touch required to be a successful admin here. I don't think I'd trust him with the block button, given what certainly seems like a vindictive streak that many of us have seen in the past. Adminship here is not just about the number of edits, it's also interacting with the community in a positive and enabling way. I've seen some improvement, and I'm convincable differently, (in fact I'd love to be convinced) but that's my thinking now... Docu as an admin doesn't seem like a good idea just yet. ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support per Juliancolton and Jayen466. Interactions with others seem to have improved since the spat with Lar, eventually resulting from some self-reflection and suggesting that Docu is aware of this issue. --Túrelio (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Mbdortmund (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Lar.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support - His interactions with others seemed to have improved. I also see Docu asking for administrative assistance more than almost any other user, I think he would put the tools to good use. Tiptoety ^talk 21:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Just be cautious if you depart from renaming files and other noncontroversial matters. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Very active, helpful and knowledgeable. --Jarekt (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

•  Comment Not a bit early? --Leyo 21:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • If every admin had done 30k of edits since then, I wouldn't have had to request it. -- User:Docu at 07:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Seems to me a bot could do a single task like this. Even a temporary admin bot? Wknight94 ^talk 21:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It would still require me to make this request first. -- User:Docu at 03:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
    • So what is different from your recent RFA? How have you addressed the concerns that were raised there? Wknight94 ^talk 03:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
      • You might want to check Special:Activeusers/Docu to make sure. Since then we have File_renaming#Category:Phoebastria_immutabilis and I'm probably of the one users who requested (or granted on one's own initiative) the most autopatrolled rights for users since patrolling was introduced (all granted except the ones for BrooklynMuseum). -- User:Docu at 04:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment It might be easier to give administration (deletion) rights to the bot itself. --Foroa (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that a request of that sort was made a while back and failed, for someone's bot. Maybe it was Docu's bot, I'd have to go dig in the archives. But I seem to recall we tend not to give admin to bots run by non admins. So that may not be a viable route. Perhaps if someone else ran it? ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Question Docu: What do you think you've done to address the concerns raised in your last request for adminship. This is an essay question, it requires you to read the RfA and internalize what it says, and "what are the concerns?" will not be a satisfactory answer. I want your thoughts on the matter, including some introspection. ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Request Please add {{Babel}} to your userpage. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Request I will second The Evil IP address request. It is useful for people trying to contact you. --Jarekt (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

and enable email in your preferences --Justass (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)