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!

Bubble tea!

-download | sign! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

I have noticed that you have been going to various RfA's and opposing, claiming there are too many administrators. I have recently found three times where you have done this [1] [2] [3]. Could you please elaborate this view further, as to why you believe there are too many administrators, and why it matters how many there are? —Mythdon t/c 22:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I too am very intrigued by this this isn't anything new can you please explain why you you are opposing every single rfa with the same reason like you always do also seen here in your voting history [4].It seem very unnecessary to me but i will let you explain why.

-- Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 04:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic-ban

This is a courtesy alert that I have proposed a topic-ban for you from voting or commenting in any further RfAs. This discussion can be found here. Tan | 39 19:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, even though your proposal has no actual policy behind it. --DougsTech (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes, there is policy behind it. Obvious trolls are usually blocked on site. The only difference is you are a tiny bit smarter than the average troll, though trolling is trolling. Landon1980 (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You can call it "trolling" all you want...strange how people see my opposes as "trolling" but never say anything to the people who do a lot of supporting. --DougsTech (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why you nominated someone for adminship? If you truly feel there are too many admins why on earth would you do that? Also, why are you not willing to discuss it? You don't even try doing anything about it. You know you are trolling. You know good and damn well your vote is thrown out on site, and that everyone just looks at it thinks to themselves "what an idiot." You are an attention craving troll, nothing more. Landon1980 (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look you will find plenty of explanations. People like you who flame before acting are the reason I get tired of keep on explaining it over and over and over. The nomination was requested by the user. I review all candidates and felt him suitable. I also do not oppose candidates that may be good admins. But, if there is a chance that the user might be a bad admin, I will oppose. Because once he is an admin, he is very difficult to be removed. Ryulong is long overdue for removal but that has never been done. We need to all work to keep people like that from becoming admins in the first place. --DougsTech (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note my comments in the general comments section, and feel free to respond to them there, here, or nowhere, as you wish. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have reviewed the candidate and find evidence which suggests they may be a bad admin why do you not cite the diff(s) that suggest this with a reasonable oppose that will be counted by the closing crat? You know your current voting style has absolutely no effect on the outcome of the RFA, so if you are telling the truth above why do you not write an oppose with the evidence you found? I also have one more quick question for you if you don't mind: What exactly did you find when reviewing COM that made you think he would be a suitable admin? Landon1980 (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

As I hint it my support of your "right" to make your stances, might you consider a different approach? How about instead suggesting we need to focus on desysopping any bad admins and preventing additional bad admins, but at the same time not assuming everyone won't make a good admin? I think you can make a better case for a need for community based desysopping if you think we have too many bad admins, rather than just too many admins in general. I don't agree with your current argument, but there's something anti-encyclopedic about outright banning opinions we disaagree with, no? Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed by the fact that some view a topic-ban of this editor as "banning opinions we disagree with." Doug's is trolling, the ban would do nothing but prevent him from trolling RFA. This isn't someone with an unpopular opinion, it's obvious trolling. The logic in the oppose section is so absurd I don't even know where to begin. I agree that editors can and should be able to express their opinion (regardless how absurd that opinion may be) all throughout the RFA process, but when it has became obvious their sole intent is to disrupt the process it is a different story. Landon1980 (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern is partially that if set some kind of precedent here, some could see it as incentive to indeed go after any unpopular opinion and if this one sentence oppose he makes is copy and paste trolling, then how do we know that copy and paste supports made across multiple RfAs are similarly not actually considering the individual merits of the candidates? Believe me, as my RfA comments show, I actually look up diffs and block logs, userpages, etc. of each individual candidate so I have something original to contribute. So, yeah, I don't like copy and paste "votes" and I don't believe we have "too many admins." But the amount of uproar over it seems disproportionate. This much displeasure should be over "oppose because we have too many admins of this gender" or something totally indefensible and that could besmirch our project. I think we're making a bigger deal out of something than should be made and again to Doug, I strongly urge you to reconsider the copy and paste stance. Myself and several others are defending you and probably receiving heat for ourselves in the process. Please, in good faith and appreciation for your defenders, seriously reconsider your approach. It is clear that it is not persuading those with whom you disagree. If you can't get the lid off the Lizard Lava by twisting it with your hands, use scissors to saw it off. If you can't reach your back and have no one around to put the Ben Gay on to ease your back pain, grab a spatula and use it to spread it on your back. Put simply, when one approach doesn't work, try something else. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You could have said nothing else that would have gotten so many editors to listen and pay attention to you, DougsTech. I agree with you, the way admins are consumed by your votes shows there are far too many of them, as there simply is not enough other work on en.wikipedia to keep them occupied, and they are in dire need of finding things to pay attention to. --KP Botany (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

I've blocked you indefinitely as you no longer appear to be interested in building the encyclopedia; having not edited the mainspace in nearly a month and used your account solely to cause disruption in our internal processes. You may contest this block by using the {{unblock}} template. –xeno ^talk 16:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)