User talk:DougsTech: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:05, 9 April 2009

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!

This is DougsTech's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This is DougsTech's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

your !vote...

I noticed that you started putting your !vote at RfA's in the Neutral section as compared to the oppose... I have no problem with it there and can actually support it there. Oppose, IMO, is when there is something about the candidate that deserves an oppose.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I still think there are too many admins, but in that particular case I think that that editor would add to the "good" of the admins, and possibly counter all the disruptive admins. --DougsTech (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you started putting it routinely in the Neutral section, you might encounter less hostility. It'll have the same affect, but when it comes in the oppose section, people get finicky... they want to see a reason for a specific individual, not some generic philosophical one. Some people take opposes more personally than others. In the neutral section, you have a little more lieghway to put subjective statements. In the Neutral section, I would fully support your !vote... in the oppose section, I will tend to agree with Majorly as it comes off negatively and pointy.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If you used the neutral section to put out your belief about admins instead of oppose, I would gladly strikeout my !vote to topic ban you, and you'd likely not be harassed by other editors nearly as much about it. Tim meh ! 00:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd stop harassing DougsTech on this issue, I'd gladly strike my vote to topic ban you from this page. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I offer DougsTech an alternative to his actions that would prevent any topic ban, and you still badger me about it. I think you need to stop harassing me on every comment I make here, stop with the accusations, and take a little time away from this whole issue so you can calm down. Tim meh ! 14:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question; how many posts of yours blasting DougsTech for his votes do you think it will take before he understands that you do not approve of his actions? You've already made 19 posts on this page over the last few days. Unless he is like me, a certified idiot, I think he gets it now. You do NOT need to keep badgering him about it. I'm not the one that needs to calm down. You are the one that persists in badgering him. If you don't want to be reminded of this, all you have to do is drop it and walk away. Continuing to blast him about it will result in nothing pleasant. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only badgering being done is by you, responding to all of my posts here whether they concern you or not. In fact, the majority of those 19 posts you decided to count are responses to you or someone else, not directed at DougsTech (and absolutely not intended to badger him about his !votes). But since you feel so strongly about speaking on DougsTech's behalf and making uncivil comments every time I make a post here, I will not post here anymore. Tim meh ! 15:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

Per WP:TPG:

On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred.

DougTech is within his rights to remove comments. Visitors here should respect that. Kablammo (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This disruption needs to stop

You have been told many times by numerous users that your voting on RfA is disruptive. The reason you give is in no way related to the candidate at hand. Otherwise fine admin candidates are getting oppose votes from you for something unrelated to them or the RfA process. Please stop. This is in no way putting forward your idea that we have to many admins, the correct forum for trying to convince others of that idea is at WT:RfA. Your bot-like posting of the exact same comment on RfA after RfA without any regard to the subject of the RfA is pointless and is causing drama.

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from attempting to convince people of your viewpoint in the appropriate forums, however when people disagree with you it is not okay to go from forum to forum spamming the idea. If people don't agree with you in one place, then they will not agree with you at 20 different RfAs as well. Especially if you simply repeat the same mantra without any attempt whatsoever to provide new arguments or a demonstration of how it relates to the page at hand. Please seek more productive methods of convincing others.

I am now assuming you know this is not a productive method of debate. I am assuming you know these postings are disruptive. If you continue to post the same thing on AfDs unrelated to your point I will consider you to be deliberately and intentionally attempting to disrupt Wikipedia. Chillum 00:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to consider whatever you want. I have already said this is not the case. My !votes are within policy. The only disruption is the users who are making the various threads everywhere to discuss it. --DougsTech (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum, perhaps you have read the long AN thread about this. There is no consensus to restrict Doug's !votes. Skinwalker (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skin, that discussion was about a topic ban. Not being topic banned in no way allows disruptive editing. Chillum 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum, you are welcome to your opinions regarding DougsTech's voting. I do not see any reason for DougsTech to stop what he is doing. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A trout on all your houses

This is not an acceptable edit summary. Edit warring is not an acceptable way to handle this either. Please stop.--Tznkai (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, is this acceptable as a summary? You should be discussing this with the other admin that posted it in the first place. --DougsTech (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2 minutes you chose to dig up that diff and reply, you may have clicked on my contributions and found I in fact, have brought this up with Chillium. Having an action be called trolling does not invite you to do the same thing. Not only is it dubious by any number of behavioral standards, its entirely unproductive." There is a great deal of disagreement from others about your votes, I understand you will not likely change your mind, but it behooves you to learn to respond to those concerns with the utmost of calm.--Tznkai (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Doug! I am pretty ardently defending your "right" to make your opinion in multiple threads and am willing to continue to do so; however, please do not be baited or exacerbate things further, i.e. even if someone reverts you as "trolling", I urge you not to revert in kind. Please don't make it where those of us trying to stand up for you feel well, I think you see what I mean. Be the bigger man as it were. I do also strongly encourage you to consider the individual candidates. I don't expect you to agree with my criteria, but please maybe consider even if you want to oppose "per too many admins" at least doing it in a copy and paste manner, i.e., maybe say, "While I respect this candidate as an editor and like his contributions to x or y aspect of Wikipedia, nevertheless, I oppose out of principal" or something that at least doesn't feel like just a vote? Thanks for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, A Nobody! In all the discussion (and personal attacking by others), I may have overlooked all the editors that are standing up for their right to voice their opinion and participate in RfA !voting and discussion. For this, I thank them. We must all work to retain wikipedia's original purpose. I do look at every individual candidate. In Neuro's case, I just couldn't oppose. He is a great asset to Wikipedia. I believe he would be one of the "good" admins, and not participate in all the cabal that seems to take place by the admins. With the others, from what I can see, they have not demonstrated that they they would be better than the rest. I will definitely consider your request, perhaps it will stir less controversy, as that is NOT the desired outcome. --DougsTech (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's encouraging. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the desired outcome is not to stir controversy, why not make your comments in the Neutral? There your voice would still be heard, but it wouldn't create the drama that is going along with it right now. Right now, you are not being heard, you are losing credibility. In the Neutral Section, people might listen.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I also want to make the best attempt possible to keep further admins from being promoted, because there are already too many. I don't mind new GOOD admins being added, but the abusive admins must be removed. --DougsTech (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then find a reason why specific people shouldn't be admins. Do your homework and make your opposes specific to the individual. Research a candidates contributions and if you can find a solid reason(s) to oppose them, then do so. Make a case that User:X isn't qualified to be an admin, your blanket opposes do not achieve the stated goal you just made. In fact, they lead people (even those who will defend you) into thinking less of you. Cut-n-paste support/opposes are meaningless and nobody is ever going to "Oppose per DT" based on the rationale you are currently giving. Now, if you give an oppose where you cite specific issues---the user showed repeated incivility, repeatedly nominates articles for CSD that they shouldn't, gets into edit wars, then people might listen to you.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I would like you to nominate me for RfA. What do you say? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions...Why do you want me (and not someone else) to do it? Why not nom yourself? This may be a good way to see if the community is voting on the nominator or the person nominated. And, would you be open to recall? --DougsTech (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to answer your questions fully, but have reverted that long winded and perhaps rash (never a good sign for an Admin!) response to the page history. Truth be told, my first priority would be to find a suitable co-nom for editors like user:Kelapstick, user:Bongomatic, user:Dravecky, and user:Rjanang (or whatever he goes by these days) who I think are good people who've done a great job working on the encyclopedia and should be considered for Adminship. They are all human, so if there are already too many Admins maybe they're not suitable, but I've enjoyed working with them and I think they're the kind of people and editors that we should consider giving the tools. Let me know what you think. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 I would like you to nominate me for RfA. What do you say? [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 19:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 :A few questions...Why do you want me (and not someone else) to do it? Why not nom yourself? This may be a good way to see if the community is voting on the nominator or the person nominated.  And, would you be open to recall? --[[User:DougsTech|DougsTech]] ([[User talk:DougsTech#top|talk]]) 21:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
+::I've tried to answer your questions fully, but have reverted that long winded and perhaps rash (never a good sign for an Admin!) response to the page history. Truth be told, my first priority would be to find a suitable co-nom for editors like [[user:Kelapstick]], [[user:Bongomatic]], [[user:Dravecky]], and [[user:Rjanang]] (or whatever he goes by these days) who I think are good people who've done a great job working on the encyclopedia and should be considered for Adminship. They are all human, so if there are already too many Admins maybe they're not suitable, but I've enjoyed working with them and I think they're the kind of people and editors that we should consider giving the tools. Let me know what you think. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
-::I think editing Wikipedia should be fun. I'm confident that "win or lose" we'd make a good team, so to speak. I expected you might be reluctant, but of course there is an argument to be made that for those who think there are too many Admins, my becoming one might help thin the ranks. :) I suppose it might be taken as a joke nomination, particularly in light of these comments, my recent confrontations over controversial article fare and your stance on there being too many admins, but on the other hand I think your support might be especially helpful given your overall reluctance to support additional Admins and, well, I think I'd be a good Administrator.
-::If you think I'd make a good Admin, that's an opinion that carries some weight. I'm serious about the nom, although I'm also realistic about my chances and I don't think they're very high.
-::Good judgement requires staying out of administrative decisions where there is a conflict of interest or an emotional involvement, and I have no problem with that. I would do my best to avoid using the tools in those instances and to correct myself if its pointed out to me that I may have overstepped. My personal opinion is that people who have opinions and who aren't afraid to express them can be well suited to being admins, although they are at a disadvantage in the nomination process. It takes all kinds, so to speak. I certainly appreciate that there may be concerns over "drama mongering", and I'm sure there will be some valid criticism of mistakes I've made. I'm confident that I can respond appropriately to the demands of being an Admin and I'm committed to using the tools prudently and continuing to improve the encyclopedia. So where there are constructive criticisms I'm happy to address those issues as best I can in whatever way is appropriate.
-::As I am mostly focused on article contributions, I can't say that I have a huge need for the Admin tools.  But I think they would be handy for looking into deleted articles (where as I've needed to ask for assistance currently), and I'd like to help those who are sturggling with the article creation and content developement process. Once I figure out how, helping MBisanz out running the AfD show would also be a project area of interest.
-::I have quite a bit of experience on all sides of the deletion process, so I think my perspectives and judgement would be useful there. Clearly I would need to learn how to use the tools properly and appropriately as I've had to learn how to edit.
-::As far as recall, I am certainly open to the idea of it, but after seeing how it was used in regard to MBisanz I think the process needs work.  I've seen some desysops through Arbcom, so it seems to me there is already some means for addressing instances where the tool privledges should be revoked. If respected editors and fellow Admins reached a consensus that I was my having the tools wasn't helpful I would be fine with giving them up. I would also be an Admin that took seriously the concerns over the struggles of new editors unfamiliar with our processes. And I think accountability and having checks on balances is critical. I'm certainly comitted to fairness and would be happy to help any editor that felt they were having a difficult time.
-::As far as a self nom, I think having the confidence of a respected and experienced sponsor is important. If you said to me, hey here's what you need to work on and you need to do more of this first, instead of: yes, I think you'd be a good Admin, I'd be fine with that. I also respect that you've been willing to take some flak for expressing an opinion that isn't popular. I can relate to that, and while I respect the role of consensus and the importance of abiding by it, I also think that having some nails sticking up here and there is a good indication of areas that may need hammering. :)  Maybe I worded that poorly, but hopefully you catch my drift. One last point is that I also think the nomination process itself would be beneficial in my case as I'm interested to see what people would have to say and in improving areas where my work hasn't been especially helpful. Wikipedia is a learning experience and I think I would learn a lot from going through with a nom whatever the outcome.  [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 22:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)