Jump to content

User talk:DougsTech

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DougsTech (talk | contribs) at 05:55, 29 May 2009 (→AN/I). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

DougsTech
Contributions by Month
Contributions by Month
Home Talk Contribs Edit Count eMail Sandbox

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One down

A bad admin user:ryulong is desysopped! Hopefully this trend will continue until we can weed out all the malicious admins, then start promoting new users who will use the tools within policy. --DougsTech (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, was that comment really necessary? –Juliancolton | Talk 00:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. It points out what I have been saying all along. The more bad admins we remove, the more we can work to make wikipedia better. Once we have removed all these malicious admins (and there are many), we can begin to add more. The community and arbitrators are willing to identify and remove these administrators, as evidenced by user:ryulong's removal. This is a step in the right direction. --DougsTech (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Julian, best to just ignore him if you don't agree with his comments.  iMatthew :  Chat  00:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily a matter of agreeing with him; WP:CIVIL is a policy that all editors need to follow. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Doug! --PirateSmackKArrrr! 05:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Celebrating an ArbCom ruling seems to be uncivil. The winning party may not celebrate, apparently. --DougsTech (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think per WP:BATTLEGROUND, the key is to not think of it in terms of "winning," though? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Your recent edits are completely out of line. Please stop immediately. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? What policy makes them "out of line"? --DougsTech (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@DT: If you can't see why . . .you need to be blocked until you can. R. Baley (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC) This is your last warning. R. Baley (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you are out of line. No templates or a block warning, and he wants an immediate block. He's probably just mad that his fellow admins was desysoped ;). --DougsTech (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, perfectly in line. You have your warning. Please do not attack other editors and then edit war to keep attacking them at their user page. R. Baley (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no attack made. Echoing the result of an arbitration result is in no way an attack. A desysop of a malicious admins is a victory for all wikipedians. If we forget our history, it is bound to repeat itself. --DougsTech (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think calling him "malicious" is without foundation. Unless you can support it (I don't really recommend you try) to continue to refer to him/her that way can also be considered a personal attack. I suggest you cease to do that as well. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't consider "misuse of his administrative tools, failure to address the community's concerns, and inappropriate off-wiki behavior" to be malicious? Thats not my call, consensus made that decision. --DougsTech (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hi DougsTech! While I have defended you with regards to your opposes, please avoid edit warring on another user's talk page. It is probably not a good idea to jeer someone for being dysysopped in the first place: [1], but edit warring over it as with [2] and [3] really does not help. Again, I am happy to defend your ability to argue how you want, even if I disagree, but even those of us who defend that cannot really defend pouring salt on someone's wounds and then edit warring. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if it came across that way. I thought he had been banned. Kinda like adding a "blocked sockpuppet" template to a sock's page, someone needs to add a "malicious desysopped administrator" to those pages. --DougsTech (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Making reference to the desysopping of Ryulong in an appropriate context, such as a relevant policy discussion or arbitration case, is fine. Posting such comments as you made on Ryulong's talkpage, and particularly twice reverting to keep them there, is inappropriate and could be construed as harassing. I saw your edit summary indicated that you were finished with doing so; please adhere to that commitment, and do not post to Ryulong's talkpage again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't plan to,as that would be a violation of wp:3rr. Is accusing me of attempting to violate wp:3rr be construed as harassing? --DougsTech (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have missed the point at a fairly basic level. If the only issue here were 3RR, then theoretically you could return to Ryulong's talkpage tomorrow and pick up where you left off. Which I hope it is clear you may not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, you must be thankful that appropriate action was taken that helped the project. --DougsTech (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

[4]. Tiptoety talk 04:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. Strange how when a sock or vandal is blocked, a warning is put on his page for everyone to see. But, in a case like this, there is no warning or anything left on his page. When action is taken against a user, all users visiting the page should be made aware. --DougsTech (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) A few months ago I approached you to discuss your participation at an RfA. When another editor blanked one of your comments I asked them to restore it, so you and I could converse on equal and respectful terms. Ultimately we didn't see eye to eye. Now there's a proposal to block you indefinitely. I've suggested dispute resolution instead and have offered to certify RfC. Would be willing to withdraw that offer of certification if you step back a bit from your actions regarding Ryulong. Please bear in mind that although he's made mistakes he's also human--there's a lot of good volunteer work he's also done for this project. Your actions today were ungracious. No one expects perfection of you either, but as someone who holds others to very high standards of others it ought to be imperative to demonstrate a high standard too. Please remove his name from your user subpage statement about RfA and leave a few words here to the effect that this kind of thing won't follow after another desysopping, and we can shake cyberhands. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 05:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A victory for the community has been reached with the ryulong desysoping, so I will go ahead and remove him from the subpage, if thats what the community wants. I still believe there are malicious admins, many you can find on the AN/I discussion now. --DougsTech (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone else gets desysopped would you post again like this? I agree it ought to be easier to desysop people, but would never express that view the way you have tonight. Looks too much like gloating. DurovaCharge! 05:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has been a personal goal of mine to seem him desysoped (needs to be banned) ever since he came to me and started deleting all my userpages and files, then protecting them where I cannot create them back. I am sure you would get pretty angry over that too, especially if you had spent as much time as I did creating them. I probably wont celebrate like this for future desysopings, but this one was long overdue. --DougsTech (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Am shutting down the computer for the night, so will see how this develops in the morning. Thank you for taking Ryulong's name off the page. DurovaCharge! 05:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's kinda strange Doug, you hold admins to an impossible standard of following every policy and guideline down to the letter, but you complain when they enforce rules against using automated tools to welcome users en-masse? It doesn't add up. –xenotalk 05:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is welcoming users against policy? Jimbo's page even encourages welcoming all users. --DougsTech (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silence Your Competition, or get rid of him

The discussion at AN/I seems to be "Ok, we have had enough of this guy, lets ban him!" They don't look at policy, they just make up their own reasons for doing things. Ryulong was desysoped for being a malicious admin. The votes were counted, and a decision reached. But, when someone tries to be glad about it, they are being uncivil. They will try anything they think they can get away with, and it may work (this time)...and that doesn't bother me. One malicious admin was removed. Other possibly malicious users were kept from becoming admins. A victory, no matter how small, for the community. They call it "disruption". I call it "the truth", if they don't want to hear it, they can 'cover their ears'. The only thing disruptive is all the users trying everything (and I do mean EVERYTHING) they can think of to get rid of me. --DougsTech (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not your competition. When you stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground, you will realize that. –xenotalk 05:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DougsTech&oldid=293040338"