User talk:DougsTech

DougsTech

			Contributions by Month
Home	Talk	Contribs	Edit Count	eMail	Sandbox

Welcome to my talk page. If you want to leave me a message, click here!

Block Notice

I am currently blocked from editing. I opposed some admins, so they came at me with a ton of deletions and blocks. Don't ever make an admin mad, they will use their tools against policy to silence or get rid of you, just because they don't like you. Overall, I was successful in my goals. The 2 goals I set were - remove bad administrators, keep bad users from becoming administrators. At least 1 bad administrator was removed, and countless others kept from being promoted. --DougsTech (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, you're on the wrong side of things. The wrong side is decided by the mass, not by you or any review of policy. You should not violate the no personal attacks policy. That was clearly out of line. But, that policy is routinely ignored on the project. I've been insulted lord knows how many times, and not one of those editors has ever been blocked for attacking me, even one who called me the lowest form of editor and another who called me the most ignorant and disrespectful editor on Wikipedia.
• I think the reason you were blocked is nebulous at best. You toed the line on what is allowed here, regardless of whether it's in policy or not, and got your head shot off for it. I don't think anyone can pinpoint specific things that amount to "this is the reason, right HERE" why. It's a summation of things, and this last was the straw.
• I find it telling that no particular reason for the block has been given, other than the thread at AN/I, which is disorganized and allows for all sorts of opinions to be spoken. So, the very loose "community has lost patience" bludgeon is applied.
• I don't know the particulars of the Ryulong case. I don't particularly care. I'm just not interested in reading arb cases. In abstract, I think there's plenty of people who are happy when a bad administrator gets knocked out of the picture. That's a net positive for the project. I can think of a few other cases where this has happened. Being happy about a net positive shouldn't be something to block someone for.
• I also think it absurd that some hold the opinion that an editor must start articles and/or contribute significant text to articles in order to be an editor in good standing here. That policy simply does not exist. Wanting to block someone for it is wrong, pure and simple. For the non-DougsTech reading here, I am NOT referring to any one person, but to the general abstract belief that people must contribute text to articles to be permitted to remain here. There's a zillion ways one can contribute here, and adding text to articles is just one of them. Yes, it's an important one, but it's only one.
• In my interpretation of the no personal attacks policy, you were out of line and clearly so. You need to make amends for the attack. I do not think you should voice displeasure at Ryulong's desysop (that would be dishonest), but you should apologize for attacking him for it. There's no call to be attacking someone, regardless of the reason.
• I also think you should ask for a specific reason why you were blocked. You can't hope to fix the problem if you are not made aware of the specific problem that was out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My opinion

DT. I think you need to a take a short break anyway, but when you do post here, I suggest you take ownership for your inappropriate behavior toward a desysoped admin. Gloating and taunting is unacceptable. I know you have been attacked for taking unpopular stands, but the concerns over your behavior with regard to Ryulong appear to be legitimate and to warrant action to prevent their reoccurence. I suggest you acknowledge your errors and provide a committment to avoid repeating them in the future. If you were to do so on the up and up, I would expect your editing privileges to be restored. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Echoing ChildofMidnight... DougsTech, I support your participation in RFAs, and I support your principled stance regarding bad admins. However, I can neither defend nor condone going to the page of someone who's been de-sysoped and kicking them while down. Please understand that such an action undermines the solid principles that you hold; it cheapens them. The moral high-ground is actually a very nice place to stand - stick to it, and keep the faith, you know? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

DougsTech (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I agree with the conditions listed here - [1].

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I agree with the conditions listed here - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative_to_blocking].  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I agree with the conditions listed here - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative_to_blocking].  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I agree with the conditions listed here - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative_to_blocking].  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

As much as I would like to see you unblocked, I just don't see it happening. These admins are immune to your logic and find any excuse to ban people they don't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.198.219 (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, IP. But we shall see. --DougsTech (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've noted your request for unblock at AN/I. --auburnpilot talk 21:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I have probably said too much already, back to fixing typos in articles so i don't get banned as well. 96.255.198.219 (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Doug, I noticed that you've agreed to stay away from RfA for 6 months, and I wanted to offer you another suggestion. It may help matters if you also agreed to avoid Ryulong for that length of time as well. I think the interactions with him/her may have played a large part in the block matters. I'd honestly like to see you back constructively editing here as much as many of the others. If an administrator does accept the unblock request, I'd even offer you the services of my talk page if you'd want to talk about anything. Best of luck in all things. — Ched :  ?  22:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ched! I will have nothing to do with Ryulong. My desired outcome has already been accomplished with him. --DougsTech (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to inform you that someone has posted your personal information on a certain attack site. See the history of the page in question for evidence on who this might be 96.255.198.219 (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What personal information, where? I looked at [2] if that is the one in question. --DougsTech (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Look in the history, the information has since been removed. 96.255.198.219 (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

haha, a user claiming to be Ryulong just edited the page. 96.255.198.219 (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats funny. Thats not even my name, or my photo. There is another user who goes by DougsTech, they must have googled it and found that. --DougsTech (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Check the bottom of the page, there is a website listed with LOTS of personal information. If it is yours, I will delete that information quickly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, the edits are at Special:Contributions/The_Real_Ryulong and Special:Contributions/PurpleHaze of the attack site in question. 96.255.198.219 (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't check the talk page of the first user.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Some advice

It may be a good idea to allow the temperature to cool a while regarding your indef block, and there are those who are too pleased with themselves at the moment to realise that there are likely very shaky grounds for the sanction - it may be that with more sober assessment there will be some shift toward allowing a lifting of the indefinite block in exchange for some topic bans or withdrawal from commenting about specific people, undertakings of better civility etc. etc.
As I see it you will need to sit out the original week block for your gloating over Ryulong's desysop - I do not see anyone outside of the anti Ryulong faction agreeing to lift that. Use that time to consider what you can offer to the community to return to editing - while heeding what other people have suggested, it would be a lot more effective if you were making the undertakings rather than just accepting what is there. Tell them what you intend to do in contributing usefully as well as what you won't do again (for a while or for ever, you pitch it as you judge fit). Make sure it is something that you feel you can work too - which is why you should detail what you will do, because you will need something to keep yourself away from the old trouble spots.
When you think you have a package, post it on this page. If it doesn't get picked up on, email me and some other people who have been arguing against the indef block so it can be brought up at ANI. While being true to your like minded friends, it is likely that more, er, mellow opinions will be better used in promoting your case. If you are going to make commitments in an attempt to return to editing, it is best if you start acting upon them before and while you are making the request - it indicates you are serious in your undertakings.
Lastly, ignore the ip. Don't get wound up. Don't say what you really think if that is only going to get you into more trouble. Don't get frustrated. Do relax. Do think about what you want to achieve on WP. Consider what you are prepared to give up or do differently. Think about what other stuff you can do on Wikipedia which will keep you away from old trouble spots. Do honestly consider whether you want to edit under those self imposed conditions. Do be prepared to be disappointed, but don't give up until you are certain you cannot do any more. I hope that helps, and you can take the time to think about what has happened and how you may be able to move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)