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 22:25, 29 May 2009 (→‎My opinion). 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

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]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree, IP. But we shall see. --DougsTech (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've noted your request for unblock at AN/I. --auburnpilot talk 21:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DougsTech&oldid=293184420"