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. Rehman09:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 at00:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose recent edits suggest an attitude of volume over other aspects of being a member of the community - there seems little sign of change in attitude since the earlier RFA's SatuSuro (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it's helpful to create categories by author, but they are somewhat useless if they don't reach reasonable coverage (e.g. 35 of 670). It does require some volume of edits to bring this a quality acceptable to the community. -- Docu at18:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To judge anothers edit history as part of your RFA is a good example why people oppose the RFA's - if I happen to create a category, and not finish so what? - it is not necessary to bulk edit my watchlist with the 20 edits a minute to prove your point - I would say you are simply proving your own problem - still the same attitude SatuSuro (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to comment on my edits just as I'm free to comment on yours. Personally, I avoid commenting on others people's attitude. BTW, I completed building that category before you commented here. Seems odd that you'd think it's an attitude probably that I actually did so. -- Docu at07:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think some level of communication skills are important for an admin to have, especially if a user is engaging in large-scale bot edits such as those described in the footer of this RfA. Agree with Rehman that the pattern of RfAs seems to suggest more interest in status than benefit to the project. Orderinchaos (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In reviewing Docu's edit histry and previous RFA before commenting there I notice that in Docu's third RFA on 09 June 2010, docu states "Yes, especially now since I currently can't move them with my bot" that he is using a bot, currently an issue has been raised at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Reckless_Bot_Editing_by_User:Docu questioning Docu edit volume which appear to be by a bot. While there been concern over the actuall edits, Docu has been asked to create a bot account for such to which he hasnt responded since Docu admitted he's been operating prior to June 2010 and clearly aware of Commons policy on bots. There is absolutely no way I could trust Docu to follow community policies. Gnangarra07:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think you should think it over twice, before you make such comments. At least, you don't oppose me for a lack of user boxes on my user page. Thanks for that. -- Docu at12:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a lot time on this because you do alot of good work, I'm not fussed about bable/bauble/babel boxes when you goto an editor talk page what ever language the discussions are in is generally a better guide, if I only speak english then I'm going to use english though if I recognise the language in use google translate does a fair job. Email is a must have and few people have already noted that, as is some ability to communicate even in difficult situations. In the end the way you respond to that thread, and given you've previously indicated you've used a bot and another discussion about unauthorised bot useage just means I cant support you getting the tools because I just cant trust you to follow community policies. Gnangarra14:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Category-bot, last edit May 2010 -- User:Docu.py, last edit March 2010 neither is linked from your user page, That just proves you know the communities policies, but ignore them you created to Docu.py run scritps so why arent you using it, why continue to use catalot with DOCU even after concerns are raised about your edit volumes, why didnt you present these accounts during that discussion? Gnangarra14:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its very relevant being an admin is about trust, and your actions and responses when those action are question. Even after you revealled alternate accounts one of which is defined to run scripts you created the scripts User:Docu/quickImageSearch.js and User:Docu/asdf.js then link them into Docu skin. All of this is being done while your actions are being questioned shows a complete lack of judgement and disrespect to the community, as I said previously there is absolutely no way I could trust you with the tools. Gnangarra02:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think you, as an administrator, should value other volunteers time more and help everybody use (or create) productivity tools for others. -- Docu at08:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this exchange with Gnangarra you have just exemplified all of the disruptive behavior and tenacity the the opposition has slammed you on above. Seriously, I find it amusing how you just can't seem to get it through your thick skull that you're in the wrong. That really makes me lol ;) Cheers, FASTILY(TALK)21:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the "thick skull" part. I have come across this editor quite a handful of times, and have noticed them in serious arguments/disagreements over lame things. This user doesn't easily accept any fault over them, and does not easily let things go; a very bad and annoying characteristic, for an admin or not. Rehman03:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 at11:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support = 2; 
Oppose = 12; 
Neutral = 0 - 14% Result. -- Cecil 14:14, 8 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)