Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Docu

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

 Not done - insufficient support for adminship gained after 1 week of discussion ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Docu[edit]

Hi,

To avoid needing to request others to clean out duplicates for me and to do edit request for me, I decided to request admin access.

There are a series of requests of mine at User talk:Legobot/properties.js/requests that could need admin help.

Further, I'd help configuring the interface and do some of the other admin tasks.

Mainly thanks to Wikidata_useful, I expanded the use of Q215627 to identify items about person on Wikidata. Some of the requests I made at User talk:Legobot/properties.js/requests already help identify items on mountains, lakes and, oddly, cemeteries. Not sure how that last one slipped in. I plan on expanding items on the first two further. -- --  Docu  at 17:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Votes[edit]

  1. Yes, yes, yes :) You've been giving me too much work lately :P Legoktm (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Neutral, I don't like his editing style; flooding recent changes page, about 1500 edits in 5 minutes. Only bots should be so fast. --Stryn (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Oppose, per Stryn: maybe this isn't related to adminship, but even Legobot doesn't edit so fast. IMHO You should slow down your 'bot', then I could support. --Ricordisamoa 21:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I managed to get Legobot to hit 350 EPM today ;) I think Docu moving it off to a separate account solves the problem though? Legoktm (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably yes. --Ricordisamoa 23:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support I do not have problems with this nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Neutral I have lingering concerns with your creations of P:P222 and P:P224, which consensus found were of the wrong datatype. Throughout the RFDs, you didn't seem to understand that it was impossible to change a property's datatype. (I was also unsure whether P222 – information about when a lake is frozen – fit the purpose of properties at all, regardless of datatype.) And, perhaps most importantly, when I set the descriptions of both properties to "PROPERTY NOMINATED FOR DELETION. DO NOT USE", I didn't really enjoy your characterization of my actions as "messing with the properties" (regardless of whether or not I was right, I wasn't "messing with" them... that makes me sound like a vandal, almost). I'm not opposing just yet, since you've clearly done a large amount of good work here, but I don't think I can support unless some of these questions are answered. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, what question should I answer? I did notice fairly shortly after creating these two properties that the "string"-datatype isn't just for any string and left a corresponding note on both properties' talk pages. As several other properties, I had proposed them first on WD:PP. Because we might end up with many only partially functional properties, it's probably preferable to delete them if better datatypes become available in the near future. One of the participants in the discussions outlined the steps to take to convert the properties (once the datatypes are available). I agree it's not a built-in feature, although such a feature was suggested since. BTW there are a few properties listed for deletion now and none has the label set to "PROPERTY NOMINATED FOR DELETION. DO NOT USE". Please excuse if the wording of my comment on such a change offended you. --  Docu  at 03:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. One follow-up question, if you don't mind: Am I correct in recalling that while you proposed them on PP, there was no discussion before you created them? And, if that is the case... seeing as property creation is shortly going to be restricted to a limited set of users, including admins, can you give your word that in the futue you won't create properties before they've been discussed? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 04:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support --LlamaAl (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Oppose has a misunderstanding of what consensus and levels of consensus. --Guerillero | Talk 15:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Oppose I'm sorry but I believe you're not ready yet to hold the mop. I appreciate your efforts, but there are things to polish before being ready. Keep up the good work, address the comments raised to you by other users, and then I'll be glad to support. — ΛΧΣ21 16:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Oppose per Guerillero and PinkAmpersand. Unless I'm missing something, this validates Guerillero's concerns. Until this is clarified, I cannot support adminship for Docu.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Oppose over changing the Notability policy without getting consensus. I'd be really fearful of you thinking a lack of comments early on is the same as a lack of caring. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Weak oppose.  Neutral The fact that you've continued editing at such a fast rate using your script during an open bot request, and even after having a bot request approved, troubles me slightly. FrigidNinja 20:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I approved it literally 10 minutes ago. Legoktm (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So you did. Docu has, however, continued to use the script even after being asked to stop. FrigidNinja 21:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading back on my !vote, it seems a little harsh. Switching to neutral, because I still have some concerns, related to those Guerillero and PinkAmpersand raised. FrigidNinja 01:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you consider the script as such to be a problem, I think you should ask Magnus to remove it. --  Docu  at 03:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is the script lacks a limit for how many it can do a minute, and yes, the tool does need fine tuning. The script doesn't present much a problem for small tasks though. If there is anyone else taking on monumental tasks with that script, I would ask them to use a bot with the script as well. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if this is good place to discuss the script. In any case, I think it would be counterproductive to expect users to stop using it for two weeks. --  Docu  at 04:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm certainly not expecting anyone to stop using it for two weeks, but I don't expect any user to make thousands of edits in a few minutes for any reason. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Oppose -- At least for now. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • ...
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Administrator/Docu&oldid=688918633"