Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Support = 4;  Oppose = 14;  Neutral = 0 - 22% Result = unsuccessful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Docu

Vote

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

Scheduled to end: 08:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

To edit MediaWiki namespace and protected pages, occasionally rename files and avoid creating work for other administrators, I like to nominate myself for administrator. I have been fairly active with categories in the last couple of months and operate Category-bot. I made the template that displays the clock at the right side. -- User:Docu at 08:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Comments

  • Re: The Evil IP address, my oppose isn't based on the signature but based on the communication style that led to the signature RFC and various w:WP:ANI discussions as well. Communication style also represented here by this annoying discussion, this ridiculous episode (summarized here), more signature stuff here... Wknight94 talk 17:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I would recommend setting up automatic archiving of your talk page, or do manual archiving on separate archive subpages from time to time instead of blanking the user talk page regularly. Yes, technically speaking, all the information is in the talk page history, but I find it very difficult to get an overview of this users interactions this manner. E.g., when clicking in on a revision dealing with a subject, it is hard to tell if it coveres the entire thread or only parts of it. For me, it would be important that it is easy to follow the communication on an administrator talk page. --Slaunger (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question From what I have seen from you recently, you are doing a lot of constructive work, and also has some technical skills, which are usefull. I can also understand, why, in some cases, having access to admin tools could be helpful for your work. However, I am quite concerned about some past incidents, like http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Docu&oldid=31372911 already mentioned by Mbdortmund and whether you have good enough personal judgement to handle having access to those tools. However, this and other incidents happened several months ago, and I would like to ask you: How do you perceive your own actions in the that dif today? Would you have acted in the same way today, if this issue was brought up again? --Slaunger (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • after my opposing vote user docu started to look through my pictures to find license problems; he marked for instance pictures of http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry_Bruce, who died in 1936 as missing permission... He seems to be absolutely unqualified as an admin. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mbdortmund --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • now he's starting deletion-requests although I explained on his disk that the painter died in 1936 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Patrick_Henry_Bruce_Forms_about_1918_.jpg#File:Patrick_Henry_Bruce_Forms_about_1918_.jpg --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there was no problem with your uploads, I don't see why you take this personally. The raised questions have to be addressed at some point. -- User:Docu at 07:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've contributed about 7.000 pictures and more 40.000 edits, so there will be some faults for shure. The question is, how a responsible admin would treat with the contributions of a user who obviously tries to act in the sense of our project. You marked a picture of a painting for deletion, although the painter died more than 70 years ago and I informed you about this fact. There was a fault in the description but the right way would have been to correct this fault. The deletion request was absolutely not reasonable for our project. Acting this way will produce conflicts, problems and users who are upset. Your answer above shows that you don't understand this problem and that you are not willing to change this attitude. Sorry. --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You simply removed the tag (14:22) and started your personal attacks, instead of providing the information requested on your talk page, before I listed it for deletion (14:30). -- User:Docu at 16:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • In response to your self-candidature, Mbdortmund said that you were not qualified to be an admin. Your considering that a personal attack is absurd, and only proves that Mbdortmund's evaluation is fully justified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Docu, you should probably withdraw this nomination. You're not helping your cause, but merely fueling opposition at any future nominations you consider. Wknight94 talk 17:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • To some extent, I felt I had to make this request, as I don't think I should be relying on other volunteers to do things for me - as one administrator was already wondering. It was also made a prerequist for automatizing some of the things category-bot could be doing automatically.
                As you personally do some of things I would otherwise do myself, I don't really mind you opposing it. I can even understand that you oppose this given some disagreements we had in the past, even it's unlikely that I would do the same. -- User:Docu at 06:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Concerning the moral support above, it reminds me of some discussion we have had previously of granting more specific access to a few tools for highly productive users, who knows what they are doing. For instance, in this case I would not mind that Docu was allowed to edit heavily used protected templates, as Docu is highly skilled when it comes to template implementation, and having to request these edits are really an impediment forr using Docus potential within that realm and a waste of admin resources. In this specific case, I would not feel comfortable though at giving access to block users, and perhaps not to protect pages either. Alternatively, I could also support giving temporary access to the tools for a fixed period (say a month given the very high activity level of the user), and let Docus admin actions be evaluated. If the review passes, the tools could be granted permanently, perhaps? --Slaunger (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would second that. --Jarekt (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu&oldid=36595792"