User talk:DougsTech: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:25, 1 June 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.

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)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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].

Decline reason:

There is currently no solid consensus to release this block. Please wait until the discussion is concluded. Thanks for your patience. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your talk page

Hey. I have fully protected your talk page due to edit warring. If you want to post another request for unblock, please don't hesitate to contact me. I will forward it then. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 17:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. It's his talk page, and others haven't got any business forcing it to be some way he doesn't want it. Why respond to others' inappropriate behavior by preventing DT from editing his own talk page? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, might I add, it's absurd for an admin to protect a page - and then continue to edit it, knowing only admins can do so - just like we're doing here. Unprotect the page please until Doug requests protection. If it's an edit war, we have other channels for that type of behavior. Law_{type! snype?} 17:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey DT. Can you clarify for me your take on the events involved in this block? Do you think any of your edits were inappropriate? Also, I think you made a statement about your committments and intentions going forward as far as editing here if you were to be unblocked. Can you clarify those for me please? Thanks. Just trying to see where this all stands now that the storm has been given some time to calm. I hope you had a good weekend and are off to a happy and healthy start to June. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the edits may have come close to violating WP:CIVIL, but since a former admin who lost the community's trust with his tools was not blocked for making a clearly uncivil edit, it seems like my edits were not in violation. I was blocked for opposing administrators, clearly. They are the ones who control the blocks, and they did not like what I was saying. I agreed not to RFA vote for 6 months and refrain from editing any pages not in the mainspace for 21 days. I understood "refrain" to mean not to stop entirely, but to make non-controversial edits outside the mainspace (such as replying to a message left here). Happy June too! --DougsTech (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great news!

My Request for Adminship, closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal! I figured passing this on would cheer you up during your block. While I never agreed with your position on administrators, I always felt your blanket opposition not disruptive (and would have felt left out if you hadn't opposed me). I look forward to your return. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like your RFA would have passed had you not withdrawn, but I admire you withdrawing based on the issues by BuddngJournalist, and taking time to improve before another RFA. That kind of conduct is what makes a fine administrator. If other candidates had done the same when issues arose, we could have avoided bad admins. --DougsTech (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 Hey DT. Can you clarify for me your take on the events involved in this block? Do you think any of your edits were inappropriate? Also, I think you made a statement about your committments and intentions going forward as far as editing here if you were to be unblocked. Can you clarify those for me please? Thanks. Just trying to see where this all stands now that the storm has been given some time to calm. I hope you had a good weekend and are off to a happy and healthy start to June. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 17:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 :A few of the edits may have come close to violating [[WP:CIVIL]], but since a former admin who lost the community's trust with his tools was not blocked for making a ''clearly'' uncivil edit, it seems like my edits were not in violation. I was blocked for opposing administrators, clearly. They are the ones who control the blocks, and they did not like what I was saying. I agreed not to RFA vote for 6 months and refrain from editing any pages not in the mainspace for 21 days. I understood "refrain" to mean not to stop entirely, but to make non-controversial edits outside the mainspace (such as replying to a message left here). Happy June too! --[[User:DougsTech|DougsTech]] ([[User talk:DougsTech#top|talk]]) 19:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
-::No, Doug, you were not blocked for opposing administrators. You were banned for the attack--that Ryulong was not blocked for his is a failure of the system modulo understanding that you baited him into saying it, not indication that you were in the right--for various disruptive activities, for ongoing violations of [[WP:POINT]], etc. The attack was merely the final straw in a long string of disruptive behaviour. You'll note how many people participating in your ban discussion were ''not'' admins. I know you're going to remove this comment, as you don't seem to much appreciate it when people contradict your...''interesting'' version of events, but oh well, one has to hope that at some point you'll realise that your victim ploy is full of so much hot air and nobody's buying it. //[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#36454F;font-size:80%;">'''roux'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="border:1px solid #36454F;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">&nbsp;</span>]] 20:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)</small>
-::{{ec}} You were blocked for harassment. The community had chosen to put up with your templated opposes and harassment of admins in general. However, the community clearly does not accept your harassment of specific users, and you've been blocked to prevent further occurrences the same (giving no indication that you realize the inappropriateness of your remarks). You can frame this however you want - reasonable parties will see it for what it is. The fact that no one blocked Ryulong was likely because the community realizes that [[WP:BEAR|bears don't like to be poked]]. You've been given great advice [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DougsTech&diff=293192141&oldid=293189913] on how to return to editing. It seems you've chosen to disregard that advice, to instead continue your soapboxing here on your talk page instead of taking steps to return to constructive editing. Good luck to you. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 20:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 == Great news! ==