Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/DougsTech

DougsTech

Yesterday, DougsTech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made his opinions known on my user talk page about the recent arbitration case results. I unfortunately responded in the way he wanted. Here's the series of diffs on my user talk of his repeated additions and the reverts by myself (and Versageek):

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

Here is how he responded to various other users and administrators on his user talk page:

• One down
• Your recent edits
• Edit warring

Now, sometime after I had removed the message from my user talk for the third time he had placed it and before he began the "One down" thread on his own user talk, DougsTech felt the need to clarify why he opposes every single RFA with this addendum. I am tired of his gloating about the ArbCom ruling.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech's attitude and behavior is beginning to eclipse disruptive. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And the above diffs exemplify why his oppose votes are preachy. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's just plain trolling on DougsTech's account. Support 24h block topic ban from RFA for trolling. MC10 | Sign here! 04:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, at this point, it might look like it's punitive (although I can't really tell the difference anymore). I'd bring back the age old suggestion that he be topic banned from RfA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's completely unacceptable. Gloating like that at what clearly has to be a hard time for another user isn't okay. 24 hours seems a little light to me... and that's to prevent future trolling from this user. AniMate^draw 04:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that suggestion, for edit warring, trolling, and just making useless oppose votes in WP:RFA. Support increasing times of block if he tries to ignore his topic ban on RFA. Yes, 24 hrs. is too light; I hadn't seen DougsTech's block log til now. MC10 | Sign here! 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

←I agree that his behavior is very disrupt and serves no other purpose than to harass Ryulong. And honestly, this seems to be Doug's MO. Long term disruption at RFA + personal attacks + edit warring = site ban. Tiptoety ^talk 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be adverse to seeing a 24 hour block. However, the bottom line here is that DT is manifesting a very clear enmity towards administrators (evidenced above), and as such, he shouldn't be permitted to use RfA as a venue to make his point. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he should be able to continue to vote however he likes at RfA. He makes a simple statement that is not really disruptive if people just ignore it. The beaureaucrats are not stupid, and they weigh his votes appropriately. However, the other behavior, such as his repeated posts today, is not acceptable. LadyofShalott 04:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. This isn't a matter of DT voicing an innocuous opinion. Compounded with what I see above, he is using RFA as a platform for disruption and soapboxing. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Soapboxing? As far as i can tell he has no influence at RfA. Everyone just ignores his one statement, right? Or does he preach there too? David D. (Talk) 04:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when is clout and influence a requirement for soapboxing and preaching? One doesn't need to pontificate to make a point. They can be subtle. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Because if everyone is ignoring him and he is not engaging people it is not disruptive. The gloating on the talk page is another issue though. Don't get distracted by the RfA contributions. David D. (Talk) 04:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It may appear a little off topic - but they are quite interrelated. His behavior above verifies that he has a warped and very negative view of administrators. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we care? His actions, baiting and such are another thing though. David D. (Talk) 04:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for you, but people can see this as a reoccurring pattern may care. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't deny that he dislikes administrators as a group, but so what? As long as he follows WP policies, he can edit here, no matter what his opinions are. (Of course, things like incivility violate policy, and can not be tolerated. I do not see his RfA votes in that category, however.) LadyofShalott 04:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, he doesn't edit. He just uses Huggle for rollbacks in the article space.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not a matter of letting him have his opinions. I don't care what they are. Things aren't evaluated individually, but rather as a whole. That's how a community judges the generalized effects of a given behavior. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know that the crats do not give any additional weight to DT's oppose votes at RfAs, but I still find his votes useless, as well as unhelpful and demoralizing -- unhelpful because the comments are not directed towards the candidates behavior at all, and demoralizing because it makes the candidates feel like they shouldn't be running for adminship at all. To me, this borders on incivility. While I agree with everyone else that this, on its own, should not be a reason to ban or block him, when you add in his comments on Ryulong's talk page, as well as his edits in his own userspace, it becomes clear to me that this is his goal -- to be generally unhelpful and demoralizing to admins and admin candidates. While I support an site ban/indef block, at the same time I fear the consequences of what he may do after we have made it clear that we do not want him on Wikipedia...but, this is probably going to be inevitable. Matt (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Support indefinite block

• I saw the comments and edit warring on Ryulong's talk page. Had I not been previously involved with this user, I would have blocked. I had hoped that after the last incident, he might tone it down a little and actually focus on making constructive edits. Instead, he huggled for a while, and then went back to doing what got him twice banned from huggle for a month and six months at a time [8], namely acting as a welcome bot [9] [10] (13 edits per minute exceeds the rate allowed even to flagged bots). Topic ban from RFA is inappropriate no matter who it is. Persistent harassment of admins in general? We put up with that. However, he has crossed the line into persistent harassment of specific users, including a cocktail party at his talk page [11] to celebrate an ArbCom ruling. I once again support an indefinite block. –xeno^talk 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  LessHeard vanU gave DT some excellent advice [12]. If he were to genuinely take on board those suggestions, I would support lifting the block. –xeno^talk 01:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Indefinite block. He's obviously crossed a rather wide line here. If he can't be topic banned from RfA given his behavior in totality, then he should be indefinitely blocked. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Basically, if we cant silence him one way, lets silence him another. Right?DougsTech (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Given your embarrassing remarks and edit warring on Ryulong's talk page, and your behavior at RfA, I think it's about time you found something better to do. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yep. The editor has been disruptive at RFA for far too long. This user's use of RFA to state his/her opinion is out of line, and can not be tolerated. I will not stand for that. If this block doesn't happen, I will start an RFC about the disruptive RfA participation. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  With that said, I support this block. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support per my reasons above. Matt (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support per reasons above. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior. Until It Sleeps 05:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support, not that I need to elaborate. I am tired of his constant gloating, which includes these most recent edits to his user talk [13].—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for watching my talk page. Still not satisfied, eh? DougsTech (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - From the RfA mess to these new disruptive comments to and about Ryulong, it is apparent that DougsTech is here just for disruption and not to do anything really encyclopedic. Time to shut him down. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  "Time to shut him down" - That is a good way to put it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Plus with this bit to egg Ryulong into an agruement or whatever, that is complete and total disruptive behavior (which is why I removed it). DT needs to be gone and fast. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support. At the last RFC on the RFA talk page I opposed, because I do not see harmless crankery as something to worry about. It does seem now that he has crossed a line. With that said, though, I have rarely seen a single user subjected to the level of abuse which Dougstech has endured, and I think that this type of mobbing shows the absolute worst side of wikipedia. Little niggles from a thousand editors can be worse than stalking by a single foe. AKAF (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Trolling RFA was bad enough, but if he's going to be such an ass to other contributors, we don't need him.--chaser (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I had originally opposed and instead favoured a 24-hour block for edit warring, but his continued incivility after my !vote has caused me to reconsider. I now feel that an indef block and/or a community ban is needed. His comments at RfA were disruptive but not unmanageable, but this is clearly crossing the line. His refusal to apologize for his incivility, as well as his starting a section here to try and have Ryulong banned (which was blanked), suggests that he's not interested in disengaging, and thus the block/ban would be preventative. Firestorm ^Talk 06:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Whilst the Trolling at RFA would be tolerable if Dougstech was willing to explain what his "high standards" were and discuss them, or was otherwise a useful editor; IMHO he has now proven a net negative in three different areas of the Pedia in which he has operated (RFA, Huggling and now the personal attacks on Ryulong). Whether he is a clever troll deliberating testing the limits of our tolerance or a well intentioned but counter-productive editor, the pedia is better off without him. ϢereSpielChequers 06:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. He's not here to contribute, he's here to play games, and the trolling below ought to be the final straw. Let him play his games else-where. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. Although I did agree with the ArbCom decision to desysop, the behavior by DougsTech was atrocious, and edit warring to keep that in is pure trolling. Wikipedia should not spend any more time on this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. With his behaviour so far and refusal to get a clue he's either 1) a troll or 2) the most disruptive good faith user known to man. Either way, why do we want him here? What does a user who can't even be trusted to use huggle without cocking up bring to Wikipedia? Ironholds (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Ironholds and WereSpiel, really. He's not doing anything very useful, and (intentionally or otherwise) causing a lot of trouble. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 06:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support He's gone past the point of being an ignorable irritation. Whether or not he is intentionally being a troll is irrelevant, he is causing disruption virtually everywhere he participates.--Dycedarg ж 07:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. It has been a long time since he made any kind of useful contribution. He has done little more than cause drama for some time, and it is about time we put a stop to it. ~ mazca ^t|c 07:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support per above. The Truth^TM indeed. MER-C 07:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support How much hand holding do we need to do here? He's proven his point and I'm sure he can find a venue to gloat about how corrupt all Wikipedia administrators are on another site. Now let's get back to editing. AniMate^draw 09:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support This is simply disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Slamming a custom "To many admins" template on each and every RFA and simply assuming bad faith on every editor is not the way we are supposed to work together here. The argument he made that he has "Strict Admin Criteria" is void trough nominating a canidate that was opposed by a landslide of votes. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Time’s Up — Tiptoety said it best. transwiki to WR, block any soks 2 ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support For the same reasons Excirial just stated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• DT has exhausted community patience with edits like this. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 09:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Ridiculous it's lasted this long. I'm aware what he's doing is his opinion yada yada but Wikipedia is not a soapbox for his own free speech. I think he'd be a lot better of at WR or Yahoo Answers where slagging off Wikipedia(ns) is common nature. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban/indef block Nothing other than trolling from this account, no useful contributions and a refusal to get it. Templated opposes on RFA's was annoying and mildly disruptive, but this baiting and trolling of a desysopped admin is clear demonstration that DT is by far a net negative on the project. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. The edit warring on Ryulong's was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef ban. Should have happened months ago. He is a net negative to our project. Majorly talk 14:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• This should have been done earlier. He recently said that it was a personal goal of his for Ryulong to be desysopped, and that he should be banned. Trolling Ryulong was unacceptable, whatever you think about him. Acalamari 15:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support This stuff shouldn't be tolerated and if editors refuse to knock it off, they need to find something else to do. Eusebeus (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• OPPOSE DOUGSTECH IS EXERCISING FREE SPEECH THIS IS CENSORSHIP BAN THE BANNER. Uh, I mean, support. Dissent is allowed on Wikipedia like free speech is in the real world: you can say whatever you want, but you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Per reasoning above. Syn 17:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Too many DougsTechs currently^{see here}. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Touche. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• The community and the project would be better off with one less troll. Spellcast (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support per many above. This editor is not here to be productive. Resolute 18:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef. Would be willing to propose lifting the block if (a) he clearly admitted the problem, (b) promised to stop the behavior that was disruptive, including strange RfA voting and hostility to administrators. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Get rid of the drama, go edit articles.  iMatthew :  Chat  20:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support He's become fanatical about shoving someone's nose in shit. Law _{type! snype?} 22:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - minimal substantial edits, maximal disruption of the community = a net loss. Experience says someone who is after the truth about an editor is not helping build an encyclopedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support per all of the above. Willking1979 (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Enough. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support what's the benefit of allowing this pain in the ass to continue being a pain the ass here? What's lost by excising the pain in the ass? What's gained by not having to deal with this kind of stuff? Cost benefit analysis says "indef."Bali ultimate (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Support indef block. Also, I have tried to replace the bullets with numbers, so that it easier to keep track. I shall attempt to do so in my next edit. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert, I won't argue.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  I shall also attempt to do the same with the oppose section after this edit. Again, feel free to revert.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support, with the disclaimer that I don't have a good sense of what the typical penalties are for this sort of behavior. I just think the project would be better off without him, and I don't think we've been impatient or unfair. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support block of undefined length As long as this user is insisting that he did nothing wrong and that some conspiracy is out to get him unblocking would be foolish. When this user owns up to his behavior instead of blaming shadows then we can consider an unblock. Chillum 06:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose indefinite block

• Oppose I have seen no evidence so far that merits not allowing this user to continue here. LadyofShalott 04:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose because I don't think enough other things have been tried. We should first try to institute a topic ban and civility parole with some teeth first. I would support a full ban from all RFA-related discussions and escalating blocks on civility parole, however I don't think an indef is merited quite yet. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for the moment. I suggest a strict civility parole enacted immediately, with any uninvolved admin able to block if incivility like that shown above - blatantly taunting Ryulong, which is very, very much not on - continues. His RFA comments are ill-advised, but not much worth worrying about. If he doesn't get the message soon, though, then longer blocks will become necessary. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• 24 hours - an indefinite block is not appropriate, but a 24 hour block for gaming 3RR would certainly be appropriate. Had I come across this at AN3 or whatever it is now, I would have certainly blocked him for 24 hours. --B (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  24 hour block for edit warring, plus an RFC/U on his disruptive conduct. Firestorm ^Talk 05:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Moving to Support due to DT's comments made after I !voted. Firestorm ^Talk 06:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose a block unless if it has been ongoing since I left the following caution on his talk page: User_talk:DougsTech#Edit_warring. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Does this answer your question?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  As you can see in my comment on his talk page, I did not think his edits to and regarding you were appropriate. At the same time, responding to him with "Eat shit and die," is a bit over the top as well and I do not see how such comments help. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  DougsTech was explicitly baiting me, and I unfortunately took the bait with that edit summary. I have not been in contact with him at all, and he shows up to edit war and gloat on my user page in an already stressful situation. He's no better than TAway with his gloating (after I undid his removal of a userbox from my userpage) and the random IP that showed up to say something of the same sort.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Don't take the bait. Today someone called me a "fool," not even an edit summary, but rather than insult back, I replied politely, so as if anything let that user look like the incivil one. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  It was inappropriate, but human. AN, you of all people know what it's like to be kicked when you're down.--chaser (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, true, switching to "weak" oppose and I have cautioned Doug again on his talk page. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose-His RfA conduct is tolerable as he is entitled to hold his opinion. Incivility and edit warring are bad but indef block is not justified for that, though a short block is, as in case or any other editor who violates 3RR or is incivil after warning. --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 07:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  This is the user who brought the wine to Doug's talk page party celebrating the desysopping of Ryulong –xeno^talk 07:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose only because there isn't an option to support another kind of block. He should be blocked for his attacks and edit warring but not indefinitely. If someone proposes a week or two block, I'll support that. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Very minor incident, and not one-sided either. People have emotions, live with it. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Just wondering: Did you read he entire post, or just the initial ANI report? There is more to it then some mud slinging between editors. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Check the title of this page. If there is more, use other tools. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Administrator's noticeboard/incidents? There are incidents, just more than one. I don't think there's any prohibition against bringing multiple problems here, and in my experience this is the only place where community bans/blocks are discussed - if you know of another, please enlighten me. Ironholds (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  With all due respect, i would say that the reason behind this report is "Editor Conduct", which means it involves all edits the editor made. I believe its customary that any issue involving complex vandalism is reported to Ani - and it is only natural man takes the editors entire conduct into account before making a decision on whatever proposal is made. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose with enforced probation and/or topic ban - We do not need a block of him. So what if Doug wants to do some mudslinging. We are too unhealthy with bans. I would prefer the easier way, and put him on an enforced, maybe 1-2 year probation and/or topic ban from the administrator related Wikipedia mainspace. (This does not include content parts of the mainspace or the Manual of Style). If he is to violate this, I would switch my position, but I will stay firm now that he should be not blocked and has a chance to be a fair contributor.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 11:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  "Mudslinging" is not when you repeatedly tell someone they got fired and with terminology such as "One down" or "malicious".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose indefinite block. Indefinite is a long time, I concord with Durova that some kind of dispute resolution would perhaps be worth a try. I agree with this block though and then perhaps a last chance saloon, please see comments at the bottom of thread. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC))
• Oppose indefinite block for a little edit warring on a talk page. Nothing he has done on the rfa page is disruptive. David D. (Talk) 14:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry? We're talking personal comments, goading and taunting users, throwing a "party" to celebrate the desyop of an admin, trolling, a tiny amount of mainspace editing so useless that he's even had huggle access taken away, all without the absence of any useful mainspace contributions. Oh, and a "little edit warring on a talkpage". Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Fine, get all worked up instead of ignoring him. David D. (Talk) 16:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose indefinite block, the one week block is fitting. I do think his RfA comments are a bit pointy and would support a topic ban from RfA project pages. This said, if he carries on with this kind of behaviour, he shouldn't be startled if an indef block comes his way sooner rather than later. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block, presuming he makes an apology for the personal attack on Ryulong. Being pleased with an administrator going astray losing their sysop status is one thing. Attacking is another. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block There is little so unedifying as watching Wikipedia editors (including admins) getting very hostile about perceived slights upon themselves as a group (while permitting perfect strangers of questionable renown to have articles in their name hosting scurrilious rumours and blatant untruths in the name of open editing - but that's another matter, it seems). DougTech's gratuitous skull dancing celebration of Ryulong's desysop deservedly attracted sanction, but his long standing oppostion to admin RFA's is not new and has been tolerated for too long to be censured now - and other than the poking of Ryulong are there any new activities to bear in mind? I hadn't intended to comment, since I take the view that DT wastes too much time anyway, but I cannot in all conscience not register my dismay at the likely end result of this thread... This is not what the project is about. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Questions Could someone clarify the "indefinite" part of this block? While I'd support the NPA block at almost all times, and I know the 3RR rule was approached, might I ask if there has been a history of incivility in this case? The RfA issue has now become moot for the time being, as Doug has agreed to avoid that section for 6 months. I see that he's done work in vandalism fighting, UAA, and NPP - so if we have the option of building a better editor, I'd be in favor of that. I know that indef. =/= infinite, but I'm wondering how harsh a punishment is being distributed? — Ched :  ?  23:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Well, blocks aren't supposed to be handed out as punishments, but what the "indef" bit means in this particular instance is that DougsTech must make a public acknowledgement of his sins and repent before being allowed back into the fold. I find that exceedingly distasteful. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what the least "distasteful" option is. I have sympathy for what you're saying, but I don't see where we should go, exactly. If he's stated, as he has quite clearly, that his goal is to take out bad sys-ops, and then when someone loses the bit, he's right there at their talk page, gloating, and then edit-warring over it... do we just invite a reprise of that? How much disregard for community standards is too much? I see this as different from someone flying off the handle in a dispute. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  Are you proposing that bad sys-ops ought to be protected in some kind of way, and that all who criticise them should be banned? What do you see as the problem with anyone pledging to "take out" bad sys-ops? Lest there be even further confusion let me make it perfectly clear that I in no way condone gloating over the misfortunes of any editor, deserved or not, administrator or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  No. That's not within a million miles of what I'm saying. I would never say that any user gets special protection. Please read what I said again, and note that I didn't say that. If I ever say that, shoot me. I never dreamed of saying, or thinking, that.

  Did I say I had a problem with someone pledging to "take out" bad sysops? No, I didn't, and I don't. I support what he's doing, right up until the point where he stoops to being personally rude about it. Please re-read what I've written, and note that I have said nothing to that effect. I don't know why you're reading this stuff into my words. I'm coming from the opposite angle that you seem to continually suggest I'm coming from. Please do reconsider these strange conclusions about me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  I suggest that you might make an effort to be clear and consistent in your judgements. "If he's stated, as he has quite clearly, that his goal is to take out bad sys-ops, and then when someone loses the bit, he's right there at their talk page, gloating, and then edit-warring over it... do we just invite a reprise of that?" --Malleus Fatuorum 03:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  That selective bolding significantly changed the meaning of what I said. The antecedent of the final "that" (in "do we just invite a reprise of that?") is the gloating following the desysopping, and not the desysopping itself. The desysopping, and his mission to see bad admins desysopped, provides context, and explains why it is reasonable to expect this behavior to repeat. It is not the behavior that I was criticizing. I was criticizing the unacceptable gloating.

  I have been entirely consistent. I have no problem with his wanting to take out bad admins. Good work, that. I have a serious problem with his gloating over it, and being obnoxious about it, and telling someone who was just de-sysopped, "you were a bad one". The work he's doing, I support. The attitude he takes about it, I think is terrible. I love that he has high standards for admins. That is no excuse for being a jerk about it.

  Therefore... now pay attention: because he's on a noble mission, and because he's shown that he's willing to degrade that noble mission by behaving like a rotten child.... you get all of that? Because of those two facts (both of them), I think it's fair to say that this is what he's doing. He likes to take out admins, and then gloat about it.

  If he says he wants to take out admins, and then not gloat about it, I'll unblock him. That would be awesome. If, on the other hand, this juvenile crap is how he plans to react to future de-sysoppings, then I think we should ban him until he acquires a clue.

  I have been entirely consistent with this position. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  In a lot fewer words: The problem I'm unwilling to see reprised is the gloating afterwards, not the de-sysopping. The de-sysopping is not a problem. The gloating is. That part is 100% unacceptable, and the other part doesn't make up for it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wasn't Ryulong supposed to be desysopped exactly for this kind of thing? I propose an unblock for Dougstech and a block of Ryulong instead for violation of point, civil, and generalized harassment. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  What the heck are you talking about? I did nothing of the sort. DougsTech went out of his way to be an asshole towards me. I didn't provoke him into this. And I certainly was not desysopped for anything resembling this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose indefinite block. LessHeard VanU sums up the way I feel about this pretty well. Perhaps a short block for dancing on Ryulong's "grave" may arguably have been in order, to prevent further grave dancing, but nothing more. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block and support WP:RFC and ban from WP:RFA. MC10 | Sign here! 04:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per A Nobody ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 04:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Indef Block; Support topic ban from RfA This directs the medicine to the heart of the illness. If the user tries to subvert the topic ban, or indulges in further grave-dancing, then further steps become possible. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• oppose indef block- he's entitled to his opinions at RfA, which people who dislike them can always ignore, and rowing/nastiness recently doesn't warrant an indef, at the very most blocks for increasing amounts of time if continued. Sticky Parkin 11:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Save Wikipedia from censorship! --76.69.199.135 (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  This isn't censorship. This is about getting rid of a blatantly disruptive editor. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Conduct RfC

The normal thing we do is try dispute resolution. If anyone starts a conduct RfC I would certify it. Durova^Charge! 05:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about starting an RfC should a block not happen. The editor has been disruptive throughout RfA for quite some time now, and I will not tolerate it. If an RfC doesn't help, I might request an arbitration case and see if they can deal with it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support an RFC/U, per my comment in the Oppose section above. Firestorm ^Talk 05:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• I've left a note for DougsTech. Have proposed to shake cyberhands if he removes Ryulong's name from the subpage linked from DT's signature, and if DougsTech promises not to act this way after another desysopping. Durova^Charge! 05:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Well, he's taking Ryulong's name out of the subpage. It's the end of my evening so will be several hours before checking in again. If DougsTech modifies his tone a bit then will withdraw the certification offer. Durova^Charge! 05:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Looking at the edit summary on the removal I'm not convinced it's him "shaking cyberhands", more trying to avoid immediate problems. Ironholds (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly support Durova's original suggestion While I did strongly oppose any blocks or bans in regards to Doug in the past, I believe that recent events have dispelled much of the AGF considerations that I once held. The idea or concept that admins must be held to a high standard is indeed a reasonable viewpoint to oppose a candidate; however, it is also reasonable to expect the same high standards of the person requiring those standards. Simply put, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and I believe that with the posts made to Ryulong's talk page (apologizes for any mis-spellings), and the subsequent edit waring reverts, Doug has shattered the glass house in which he once lived. I believe that it's time to take this little story to its natural conclusion, and put to bed any further disruption to our community. — Ched :  ?  07:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Will an RfC do anything for someone who's on a crusade and seems far more interested in winning his crusade than actually editing the encyclopedia? I mean, his only edits seem to be reverts using Huggle, and I'm fairly certain I remember he was all but forced to start editing in article space when his antics at RfA proved to be too much and were his sole edits. Also, haven't there been issues with his use of Huggle? Is he really a net positive? AniMate^draw 08:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

After the painfully boring process of looking through DT's contributions, I have to say I oppose an RfC. He isn't a contributor, he's an automated script user. That's it. He got angry with Ryulong back in August of last year, when Ry removed his Huggle access and deleted his monobook's automated scripts. He then moved on to Twinkle and AWB. After a failed attempt at obtaining rollback, he started using Huggle again. If we were talking about someone who created content or even edited, I'd say an RfC would be appropriate. However, I challenge any user to find a main space contribution that isn't an automated edit. AniMate^draw 10:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support RfC iff there is no consensus for an indef block. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support RFC. I am sick of people trying to cop up a reason to block someone indefinitely because they fail to write text for articles or start new articles or make substantial contributions to the mainspace (how arbitrary is that?). There is NO policy that says you must contribute to the mainspace to be an editor in good standing here. It simply does not exist. So what if he uses scripts? If he uses them properly (yes, he's made some errors, but overall not terrible) it's a net positive for the project. Looking at his mainspace contributions, I see a lot of good vandal fighting. Why is this bad? How is this not contributing to the mainspace? If you want to ban him, fine. But come up with a REAL reason, not some copped up reason that has no basis in policy in ANY respect. Quoting Wikipedia:Wikipedians, "Whatever one decides to do (unless it is merely to vandalize), every Wikipedian is presumed valuable." If that's not the case anymore, we've seriously lost our way. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support RFC. I don't know if it will help, and after seeing the above diffs, I don't feel very generous towards this editor. I think his RFA participation is fine, and I'm very disappointed in the community's seeming inability to deal with his participation there in any sane way. However, I'm quite unimpressed to see someone going to the talk page of someone who's just be deadmined, and vaunting over their loss like that. I think that someone who is willing to do that has no place here.

  We don't have to work with everyone who comes along, and I think drawing the line at such blatantly obnoxious behavior seems entirely appropriate. I support a community ban until DougsTech indicates an intention to interact with dignity, decorum and respect. I don't mind, however, doing the RFC first, and seeing if he's willing to adapt. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support I believe GTBacchus said what I've been thinking but hadn't put to words. I've never felt that his standard RFA comment was something anyone needed to get worked up about. His latest talkpage antics however were certainly over the line and blockable. However If he's willing bring his behaviour into community standards, a second chance may be reasonable.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support RfC There are a lot of people articulating my thoughts here better than I can, so I'll leave it at that. — Ched :  ?  20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Come to think of it, I guess that's what I said above, so I'll strike in order to avoid dup !voting. — Ched :  ?  20:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• 'Oppose any RfC. ANI is not a forum to whine or to seek a block because someone had their feelings hurt. This is a disruption and it was not caused by Dougstech. Ryulong really should have known better than to start this mess. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  Excuse me? I didn't start anything. DougsTech went out of his way to do this to himself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  Excuse you, what I see is the obvious disruption at ANI against someone that you don't like and disobeying 100% exactly what the ArbCom ruling was. You were desysopped because you can't stand criticism and you have your friends get reprisals upon others. Sandstein has a long history of viewing your blocks and denying unblocks, and even increasing your blocks against people that question you. For someone who ArbCom said had a problem because you refused to accept questioning of your actions and attitudes, this is a serious violation. You had how many days since the ArbCom closed to create this outrageous violation? Perhaps you should have gone on a WikiBreak, because you learned nothing just like you learned nothing from your RfCs. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  Quite clearly, Ottava, you have no idea what you're writing about. R. Baley (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  I've been on the receiving end of the above, and I submitted logs and the rest to ArbCom members that ruled on the matter. I've also put forth a long history of Sandstein's interactions with Ryulong's blocks. Its not a secret, and ArbCom has in record him approaching others also. He was desysopped for this outrageous abuse. Sandstein had no business turning this to an indef, and this had no business being at ANI. I think an ArbCom case reviewing everyone's involvement is definitely in order, and I think stronger measures are going to have to be taken against Ryulong because he obviously didn't care about what ArbCom said. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  I agree. I did not disobey any ArbCom ruling. I was not desysopped because I can't stand criticism. And Sandstein and I have no connection whatsoever. DougsTech did not question my actions. He was celebrating the fact that I got desysopped and doing so in my face when multiple people told him not to. All I did was relay this to the community with respect to DougsTech's other behavioral issues.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  No connection? I already put forth where he reviewed many of your blocks and has shown a close connection to you. And people can celebrate your desysopping all they want. Get over it. You were a very bad admin and multiple RfCs and an ArbCom case stated as much. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  And now you're acting no better than him. And as I said last month, Sandstein has always done unblock denials. And there is nothing on this page that has to do with my ArbCom restrictions. You have no idea what is going on and are instead using this as a way to continue to hold a grudge against me for the block I placed on your account last year. It wasn't your first and it wasn't your last. Get over it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  No better than who? And this is not a coincidence, as was proven before. The fact that you have users protect you from being blocked over problematic incivility is also troubling. You think its appropriate to request someone to be blocked after telling them to "eat shit and die"? And then having a friend remove their request for attention at ANI after you tell them that? This behavior is completely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  I blocked a lot of users and notified that they were blocked. Sandstein goes through CAT:RFU and responds to a lot of unblock requests. The correlation is all in your head. I've already stated that I should not have told him to "eat shit and die" but I lost my patience with him being a dick to me. And I have no connection to NeutralHomer who put the original week block and removed the thread he started as a retaliatory measure. The only people who I have any sort of conversation with concerning the people who have been assholes to me since I got desysopped are DragonflySixtyseven (who is not contributing here) and Versageek (who also is not contributing here). I have not asked them to block anyone. I did not ask anyone here to block anyone. I merely relayed what DougsTech has been doing in regards to my desysop. If you think my behavior here is inappropriate, go to WP:AE and suggest that what I'm doing here is a violation of my arbitration restrictions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  The way you interacted with Sandstein on my talk page was classic good cop bad cop, especially with you having him make the claims that I should be blocked for admin contacting me through email and then you made that block adjustment. I listed many such problematic interactions between you two for ArbCom already, so that doesn't need to be addressed further. But others have made it clear that they did not approve of you soliciting others for blocks in such a manner. Now, no connection to NeutralHomer is a stretch as there are over 5 pages that cannot be shrugged off as a coincidence. But yes, perhaps you are right. Perhaps you got the person who you told to eat shit and die indef blocked while he did not make such an egregious attack as you did. Perhaps there is just a major double standard. Perhaps someone removed a legitimate ANI request over your problematic behavior because they just didn't care enough about standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  You still have no idea what has gone on. You are just agreeing because you and I had a conflict. I'm not going to bother trying to defend my statement to DougsTech because you don't give a shit about my opinion. I solicited nothing here other than supporting long after it was suggested, but you won't listen to me about that either. Again, if you think I'm violating arbitration committee restrictions, you know the channels by which to report that. Other than that, I think we're done talking here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but are you trying to suggest that my block over a year ago forced you to tell someone to "eat shit and die" and the disrupt ANI in this manner? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  No. I'm suggesting that your block over a year ago is making you act this way to me. You appear to be the only person to say that I'm disrupting anything. If you think I'm disrupting, report me to the ArbCom.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sure if DougsTech ANI report of your little cussing fit in edit summaries which is completely inappropriate was still up there would be quite a bit to the contrary. Its easy to play innocent when any one pointing out your impropriety is reverted and then indef blocked. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  DougsTech's ANI report was simply a tit-for-tat because I started this thread. I told him to eat shit and die and then rebuffed myself in the next edit. I have no reason to apologize for it. If you want me punished for a lapse in judgement, you know the channels to do so. I'm a user in good standing (ArbCom restrictions or not). DougsTech is not as is evident by the support of the indefinite block. If you want me to be punished for what you believe is disruption on my part and violations of my arbcom restrictions, you know the channels. I'm done talking to you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  Rebuffing yourself does not make it appropriate. It would only show that you knew what you were doing was wrong, and your placing it in an edit summary makes it all the worse. To then continue your pursuit against DougsTech when you are making such comments only verifies your inability to evaluate the situation properly. Bishonen was blocked for doing far less than you. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ottava Rima, you need to stop and do a little research real quick. There is no connection between myself and Ryu. I added a banner to a page and removed a thread started by DT. There is no connection there and Ryu is right, that is all in your head. I expect an immediate apology for even thinking I was connected to another user....and if you aren't happy, I urge you to request a checkuser. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  The thing about the little script above allows people to decide for themselves. Now, lets say there is no connection between you and Ryulong. Why would you remove a legitimate complaint about someone telling someone else to "eat shit and die"? Why would you ever think that is appropriate? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  OK, technically I don't have to answer this, but I will. When someone puts up something that essentially says "hey, let's block this guy because he said "eat shit and die" and he is already engaged in harrassment of that user, that is continued and blantant harrassment and disruption and should be (and was) removed. No one else found it necessary to address this because it was disruptive. Second point...don't believe there is a "connection" between Ryu and I...request a checkuser. Otherwise, I think an apology to both myself and Ryu are in order. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  Harassment? No. He had a legitimate complaint. He is a user in good standing. Your revert is the very definition of edit warring, and doing so on ANI is an abuse. Also, your statement about a CU is absurd. No one is accusing you of being a sock puppet. You are just being accused of making a really bad decision and given the benefit of the doubt that you did it for an understandable reason (having a friend) as opposed to doing something completely inappropriate that has no explanation. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  It wasn't legitimate, it was harrassment and disruption. Now you are the only one who has a problem with this. I am done discussing this with you. Goodbye. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  Really? Because there is an egregious violation of Civility in an -edit summary-. Those can't be struck, and have always been grounds for a block. If you don't have a problem with that action, then there is a serious problem with you. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support RFC as stated above in oppose to indef block. MC10 | Sign here! 04:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support should there be consensus that the block be lifted. There definitely needs to be something done with DougsTech. If there is an RfC, and the RfC fails to accomplish anything, then lets request arbitration. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Given that there's been a passage of time already, any block would be 'cool off', thus 'punitive', thus against policy. An RfC, however, would be the establishment of a single central place to discuss his disruptive, obstructive behaviors and refer to the evidence thereof in the future, should a single RfC not convey the community's feelings sufficiently. I've little doubt that while he's aware of the community's feelings, he's also enjoying it immensely. I have two regretful thoughts: One, he'll laugh his ass off at our 'processes', marvelling we've no spine to ban him outright and fast, and two, that he'll float and revel in all the attention he'll be getting, and none of it will effect a change. ThuranX (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Although I usually find Rfc's as unproductive as they are time spent doing something other than improving articles, an indefinite block should be a last resort, especially for long-term editors. His comments regarding Ryulong were obviously unhelpful and I disagree with his "too many admins" claim, but is there more than that? Does he have any article work that justifies a second chance? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

R. Baley's block

R. Baley has blocked DougsTech for 1 week. This is DougsTech's response.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to want people to know he is blocked and is continuing his harrassment with edit summaries like "now go template ryulong because he was desysoped?". I think a talk page block is in order during his week long block. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I was planning on notifying this board, but my computer is a little slow this evening. I have no objection to any admin extending the block to indefinite. But these attacks are going to stop. Will appreciate any other admin watching the talk page in order to protect in case it continues there. Getting late, R. Baley (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I bring this to everyone's attention. It is essentially a veiled attack on Ryu and R. Baley. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Our standards after a block - disengage and deescalate

Step away from his talk page if he's trying to dig himself deeper in the hole. People vent after being blocked. Don't egg him on or encourage him, or fight with him on his talk page. If he continues this behavior when the block expires he'll be indeffed in short order by any uninvolved admin who becomes aware of the situation. Don't get into another fight or extend this one now that he's blocked. Unless he starts posting threats of violence on his talk page, step away and leave him be. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Let DT calm down. If he continues his crusade after his block, we can cross that bridge then. AniMate^draw 08:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So we are supposed to stop discussing whether or not the individual should be banned from the project because he has been blocked? That doesn't make sense to me.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is not to engage him on his talk page. Discuss here all you want. AniMate^draw 08:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. That does make sense.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong: I do think ignoring DT for the remainder of his block, would be more effective than rehashing it here. He's just enjoying every bit of attention he gets. He's been a disruptive user from the start and my opinion is that the project won't miss him once he's gone, but we are just enabling him by responding to his trolling. -- Luk ^talk 09:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone who cares enough might want to look back through DT's history and see if he started out this way, or if it developed over time, or if there was some defining incident. I have normally found admins to be helpful, even the ones I've clashed with. There aren't that many admins that I would consider to be out of control. Quite the contrary: If anything, too often admins appear to be overly lenient, and get played for suckers by users promising to do better if they're unblocked (as with a section farther up this page). A user with a vendetta against admins is not likely to be helpful to wikipedia in the short run, the long run, or any old kind of a run. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a bit of a look at DT's edit history.

Dougtech turned up about 14 months ago and immediately started vandal fighting with tools ( I would say he had had some previous experiance of wiki as he straight away was using tools and making hundreds of edits) and after a bit also started welcoming people and then in August Doughtech and Ryulong met when Rhylong switched off or disabled Dougtech's Huggle for a month, here [[14]] Here [[15]] in the discussion about this he talks about 'giving this account a rest' and 'silly admin' . The encounter with Rhylong upset him and he seems to consider it a personal attack, as is shown by his addition to his userpage here [[16]].. Then on the 6 august, rhylong deleted dougtech's huggle for a month to stop him using it poorly/badly and that was the start of it all. Then he goes off using the AWB for a while and in jan he asked for rollback priv and was refused. This set him off and he starts again adding welcome template and ading speedy delete templates, then on 19 march he starts with the oppose too many admins and here we are today. DT seemed to dislike any form of control and set off like an out of control bot with his editing thinking he was doing great work, vandal fighting and welcoming and a bit of sockpuppet accusing and automatic editing...some of which were unwanted and uncalled for. There was no article work. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

DougsTech has never created or manually improved an article, ever. Someone who starts off their wiki-life fighting vandalism simply looks like a sock, at least to me. Majorly talk 14:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

*cough* :p Nakon 14:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

*sneeze* :P Until It Sleeps 20:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that Nakon is saying there that he started out way back in 2005 doing some vandal fighting and that majorly's sweeping statement is not all encompassingly correct. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

Doesn't disagree with Majorly's statement. Majorly isn't saying "a user who starts fighting vandalism is a sock", more "looks like a sock to me". His viewpoint can be expressed without being contradicted by Nakon's contributions. Ironholds (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I was accused of being a sockpuppet because I dared to use edit summaries and proper formatting in my first few edits. I even uploaded an image (now on commons) as my third edit/action. Clearly I should have been banned as an obvious sock... It's easy to find a reason for an account to "look like a sock" but without actual evidence, it's counterproductive to pursue the issue. --auburnpilot talk 15:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I had had experience of wikis prior to my first edit too. Had great knowledge of wikicode and such. However, coming to Wikipedia and instantly jumping onto Huggle is, at least to me, a sign of previous experience, be it here, or elsewhere. Majorly talk 15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Timing

There's something that needs to be pointed out: during the thirteen minutes leading up to his block DougsTech was becoming cooperative. I had asked him to remove Ryulong's name from his RfA oppose subpage and to give assurance that he wouldn't act like this after future desysoppings. Note his actions:

• 05:40, 29 May 2009: 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.[17]
• 05:42, 29 May 2009: DougsTech removes mention of Ryulong from User:DougsTech/RFAreason.[18]
• 05:50, 29 May 2009: I probably wont celebrate like this for future desysopings, but this one was long overdue.[19]
• 05:53, 29 May 2009: DougsTech blocked for one week by R. Baley[20]

DougsTech was already deescalating, so a one week block over the Ryulong incident is not preventative. He has satisfied my request so I will not be endorsing a conduct RfC. Other Wikipedians may wish to take other actions on the basis of remaining issues. Durova^Charge! 15:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd point you towards the edit summary here, though - I don't see that as cooperation or any regret for his actions, I see that as back-pedalling (and ineffective back-pedalling at that) to avoid sanctions. "remove, for now" can't really be interpreted in many ways except as the wiki equivalent of hiding from the law until the heat is off. Ironholds (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. Yet wouldn't it be more appropriate to deal with a reinstatement if/when it happens? When people get blocked just as they're taking baby steps in the right direction, that often leaves them really jaded and uncooperative. Durova^Charge! 15:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• To be honest, as long as he continues brandishing this attitude, I see no reason to allow him to be here. If he was interested in reaching a constructive solution, he wouldn't have said it IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The truth is, I think he could get himself unblocked within a day if he acknowledges the worries and undertakes in a straightforward way to stop the snark and pointy edits. Most admins I know indeed think blocks are preventative, not punitive. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he goes a bit farther then okay. Here's hoping he understands this situation wasn't orchestrated in a smoke-filled room. The door to a return is unlocked, but he needs to turn the knob and wipe his feet on the mat. Durova^Charge! 17:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly think he needs to apologize for the personal attacks, but I also note that plenty of far more severe personal attacks go unblocked. The WP:NPA policy is applied very loosely here, and in most cases not at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• It isn't a good idea to demand apologies. We might demand that he withddraw the statements, although most of that is already blanked. We could also require him to pledge to refrain from repeating the mistake. Durova^Charge! 20:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• That's the thing. I'm not happy to see DT edit here until he indicates some kind of commitment to stay within our community's standards for how we treat one another. Bygones can be bygones, but we need to know it's not a pattern that will repeat. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite block imposed

The discussion above is now at roughly 70% in favor of indefinitely blocking DougsTech for wide-spectrum disruption – including RfA trolling, harrassment and incivility – with no change in attitude even after the current one week block was imposed, coupled with a lack of substantial, useful contributions to the actual encyclopedia. That amounts to rough consensus. I also support an indefinite block for these reasons and have imposed it. I propose that, should any administrator believe at a later time that DougsTech has convincingly shown that he understands the reasons for this block and is ready to begin editing productively, the question of his unblock should be referred to the community as well.  Sandstein  16:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that you imposed a ban on him Wikipedia:BAN#Community_ban, but I believe if I read that correctly it has been tradition that if a single admin is willing to unblock he is not effectively banned. Of course if nobody is willing to rescind the indef block, then the account is banned. We don't do votes for banning, several re-incarnations of that have failed. —— nixeagle^{email me} 17:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, a single admin does not have the right to overturn a community ban. This is, apparently, a common misconception. If editor X is blocked indefinitely, and no admin is willing to give them another shot, they are considered by default "community banned". But a user who is banned by community discussion cannot simply be unblocked at the whim of a single admin. --auburnpilot talk 17:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; see also de jure vs. de facto. –xeno^talk 17:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse, good call. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is ok. He can still say he'll stop the worrisome behaviour. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, things can move along at a rather rapid pace here. I don't want to appear to be doing the "good hand - bad hand" thing, and I know that indef =/= infinite, but Durova points to a few items above that indicate some behavior modifications. I'd certainly support a 30-60-90 day ban from RfA, and I realize that the communities patience has reached its limits, but Doug did also contribute in positive ways outside RfA. That is not to say that any manner of taunting of another editor is acceptable in any way, surely that exceeded the boundaries of our mindset here. If an editor can be turned from the dark side (apologies for the Star Wars ref), then I'd offer that a bit of mentorship might be of assistance. I realize that I was vocal per support of a RfC, and indeed I do believe that some focused discussion on the matter might offer a bit of an outlet for emotions. I'm not suggesting that we extend drama any more than need be, but I do think it only fair to be open to options. I can certainly appreciate Sandstein's efforts to put a stop to disruption, but as Gwen (in a much more concise manner) mentions above, I believe that we should be receptive to possible improvements. — Ched :  ?  18:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  I can't see him agreeing to an RFA ban at all. He doesn't think he's doing anything wrong. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 20:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support the community ban against DougsTech, a non-productive, non-constructive user. In addition, for clarification, an administrator does not have a right to overturn a community ban generated by community discussion. seicer | talk | contribs 19:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  How do you define "non-productive, non-constructive" I see an awful lot of very good vandalism reverts. He's not perfect in doing so, but who among us is? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  As stated above: Gross incivil behaviour against editor(s), Trolling/disrupting RFA just to make a point all due to his conclict with Ryo, bot like edits... I can believe everyone has a bad day one is a while which can cause negative comments or edit summaries. However, i don't think that RFA vandalism or Uncivil behaviour of this magnitude is ever acceptable. Also, trough his Statement it seems he just has a grudge against admins and still does not believe he is doing something wrong. Similary the comments about his tags at the RFA page and the comments on his talk page were not enough to at least let him see reason; Man can't believe that a bunch of editors come complaining without at least some validity. Nobody is perfect, but these edits and no sign of any form of apology put him, in my eyes, in the vandal corner. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. (Cross-posted from my talk page) "Well, I can see that DT has been community banned at this point . . . Looking over the reasons and numbers in the discussion, I concur with Sandstein's judgment and probably would have done the same myself . . . Unless something dramatically changes, I think this should just sit for a while, and the community can revisit and discuss any unblocking conditions should the need present itself in (at a minimum) a few months time." R. Baley (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:LYNCH Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per everyone else, everything to be said's been said :P ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• En-diddly-dorse. Glad to see that someone has finally bit the bullet and put a stop to his trolling, something that should have happened a long time ago. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

WP:BAN/WP:DENY

Shouldn't the user talk page be deleted and redirected to the user page per WP:DENY, with the user page itself blanked and replaced with the template for banned users?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? As long as the talk page won't be abused in some way, I don't see a need to do this. Anyhow, WP:DENY is for blatantly obvious trolls, not cases like this one.. --Conti|✉ 19:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The point of WP:DENY is that we don't maintain a shrine, chronicling the achievements of heroic trolls of yore. It's not supposed to be a kind of in memoriae damniato (how does that phrase go?) to turn bans into sealed caskets. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? rootology/equality 19:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, he deleted the block notice that basically said, you've been blocked for ongoing personal attacks and harassment. I realize it didn't say this, but the ANI thread it linked to did. The user is still mocking others on the talk page: 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.

As far as I've seen, this user has been banned by the community for dancing over someone's grave, basically, and now we're going to let them sit there and make things look unjust by delinking the relevant thread and lying about what happened? At least post a ban template on the userpage with a permalink to the thread.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• DougsTech has not been given a specific reason as to why he was infinitely blocked other than this thread, which isn't a rationale. There's no specific policy being pointed to or anything on which he can correct himself to work towards removing the block. Further, he is perfectly allowed to remove notices from his page. Read the first sentence of Wikipedia:UP#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings. So what if he removed the block notice? He's permitted to do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly. I wonder if this falls under "exhausted the community's patience". rootology/equality 19:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) As I understand it, write-protecting a User's Talk page is, in effect, telling that person to go away & never return. Ever. Leaving it accessible to the User gives her/him that one final chance to redeem her/himself. Not everyone is comfortable voting to block another Wikipedian without any hope for redemption. -- llywrch (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I fail to see how WP:DENY has anything at all to do with this situation. That page describes why we took down our shrine to Willy on Wheels, but it has nothing to do with blocking an editor for treating other editors totally unacceptably. If that's not what he's blocked for, then it's a bad block. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  The one week block was for that reason. The indefinite block, it's unclear why it was applied other than vaguely pointing to this thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  It seems to be a community patience ban, partly a result of our community's disappointing lack of patience when dealing w/ RFCs. That still doesn't explain how WP:DENY has any bearing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Nor does it explain how DougsTech can fix the problem. If there's no hope of fixing the problem, then we might as well do what is suggested here. If there is hope, then he needs to be told what, specifically, needs to be corrected. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  I've crossed out the deny part.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  (ec - reply to Hammersoft) Oh, I think he's been apprised of which community norms he's been violating. Most obviously; don't be a jerk to other editors. Don't make a point of kicking those who are down. Follow the Golden Rule. Be decent.

  The question about RFA behavior... I thought that was addressed when someone put together a template for him to use... whatever became of that? We used to be much more sensible about this sort of thing; I remember my RFA. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's policy or just custom, the common practice has evolved to letting an angry blocked user rant for a reasonable time. At that point, he needs to either post a proper unblock request, engage in civil discussion, or disappear. Give him a few days to decide whether he wants to work at wikipedia again. Then take appropriate action with the user page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure I understand the point of this thread, but I'll have a go. While it may be a broad application of WP:CCC and WP:NOTIMELIMIT, I personally am not in a big rush to get rid of anyone. I do understand that Doug took steps into WP:NPA territory, and it's obvious that community patience has reached the end of its collective rope; but I'd rather see behavior modification and attempt to swell our ranks, than just kicking every incident to the proverbial curb. Perhaps with some quality mentor-ship, would help if he was willing to accept it. I think GTB and Hammersoft have a proper outlook here, and I'd rather close this individual thread down and not embiggen the drama any more than it already is. — Ched :  ?  20:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to blocking

Call it my soft spot, but I'm still willing to give DT the benefit of the doubt. However, I realize his actions can't go unpunished, so here is what I propose;

• If unblocked, DougsTech must be willing to not vote in an RfA for 6 months, as well as refrain from commenting on, or providing evidence for, any RfAr concerning an administrator's behavior for the same period of time.
• If unblocked, DougsTech must agree to refrain from editing any pages not in the mainspace for 21 days.
• If DougsTech does not comply with these two conditions, he recognizes that his indefinite block may be reinstated.

--Iner22 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't support an RFA topic-ban, because I think a much better solution would be for us to let RFA be a place where we model better ways than that of reacting to such an editor. Banning him from RFAs is just a way of saying that we're not ready to learn that lesson, so we'll be doomed to revisit it until we do learn.

  What I support a ban for is to prevent edits such as those made to Ryulong's talk page, which initiated this thread. If he's willing to agree to treat other editors with a modicum of dignity and respect, then I'm happy enough to have him participate at RFA. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• The question for this user or any user is, if you take away these things, what will be left for him to edit? The answer to that question is the key to whether a topic ban will work. As we found from Axmann8, a user focused on a single topic cannot stick to a topic ban. If DT has many diverse interests, then a topic ban might work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  If by "work" you mean "enable the community to put off learning our lesson," then I agree. Someday, though, we really oughtta have a look at that thing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  What there will be left for him to edit is what he should be editing in the first place, informational articles.--Iner22 (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• If saying to oppose admins per "too many admins" is trolling and indefinite blockable, shouldn't indiscriminately saying to delete all articles per "too many articles" fall under such classification as well? Also, while I think his comments toward Ryulong were ill-advised and personally warned/cautioned him about it (I find incivility unacceptable and unnecessary here) as well as other things he has done, is there other incivil stuff that he has done in the past or is this just a recent bad behavior flurry, because a number of editors have far worse histories of incivility and have shown up on ANI multiple times but have not been indeffed for it. My concern here is that we are even-handed with this sort of thing, i.e. indiscriminate "too man admins/too many articles" is always unacceptable and incivility is always unacceptable as well. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  I will not agree that indiscriminate "too many admins" is unacceptable, nor that he's indiscriminate about it. If we ban him because of that, then we fail. If we want to avoid failing, then we need to learn, as a community, how to handle this type of behavior. The best way is not to topic-ban, nor to make a clear rule against certain types of voting. The best way is to let him have his lone, possibly senseless, absolutely harmless, "vote". Let's teach new admins the power of boredom, and the effectiveness of not-fighting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Well said. And then we all have more time for other things. David D. (Talk) 20:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I certainly appreciate the AGF in this, and I do agree that some time away from all things adminy would be of benefit to DT. I know there's been some work in vandal fighting in the past; and regardless of the perception of the value in that, it does alleviate any WP:SPA concerns that one might have. — Ched :  ?  20:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Topic bans have proven to be a reliable way to minimize drama and redirect otherwise productive editors into more fruitful endeavors. Why, though, is it that people seem to always say they're against RFA topic bans in particular? If all your drama swirls around topic x, whether that's Some hotbutton article or ANI or FAC or whatever, what is the difference if it's a backend thing or a content thing? Disruption swirls around RFA? Gone from RFA. rootology/equality 20:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would you consider one sentence, the same one, in every RfA disruptive, or even annoying? The disruptive behaviour is the badgering that goes on. David D. (Talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a very good question, Rootology, and I think the answer is this: there's something we can do that's better than a topic ban. That would be for us to model best practices during the RFA process. We expect admins to go forth, and deal with issues such as trolling, and "drama". Wouldn't it be great if the very process by which they're pushed into that world contained a model of the best way to do it?

If this were an article, then the necessity of maintaining a stable, neutral version takes priority, and topic-bans can be very effective in making that happen. This is RFA, however, and passing up the chance to let that process be a lesson in smart dispute management seems like a damn shame.

I dunno; does that make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me be very direct. The best way to deal with such "trolling" is to give it a minimal reply if any, and move on. We seem instead to want to model the method where we let it get under our skin, and have big public freak-outs about it. I think that's a stupid approach, and I think we should stop doing it. We should maintain a culture where appropriate responses are encouraged, and inappropriate responses discouraged. We're currently making a great big fiesta out of enabling inappropriate responses. I think that's terrible. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I second that.  Sandstein  20:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC) (Although in this case the minimal reply eventually had to come in the form of an indefinite block.  Sandstein  21:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

I agree. Arguing in RfA opposes is rarely a good idea, especially when arguing against such a thin rationale as DT provided. Still, the sum of his actions lead me to believe we're likely not going to suffer too much if his block remains in place. AniMate^draw 21:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For your position to make any sense you'd have to be blocking those who create these "big public freak-outs", not the editor making the oppose which causes those who ought to know better to "freak-out". You also might like to consider why there are rarely any comparable "freak-outs" in the support section. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that blocking people who get upset follows in any way from what I've said. I'm not recommending that we block anyone over this stuff. Next, I don't see blocks as punitive, but as preventative, so if we end up having to block someone, better 1 person than 30, except that the problem will recur, with another editor, if we don't choose to learn from this experience. The solution I suggest is a permanent one. As for support votes, people aren't bothered by positivity nearly as much as by negativity, nor by praise nearly as much as by criticism. I don't find that to be mysterious at all, but it doesn't make the responses we've been seeing appropriate. Perhaps those who dislike his votes so much should consider whether those votes would actually do any harm if we just stopped responding to them, or if we always responded with, "Thank you for your vote." -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Going back to this threads topic: Given that Doug is now requesting an unblock, and linking directly to this thread, and there are several admins who might be inclined to grant that, I offer the suggestion that a "Stay away from Ryulong" item should be spelled out as well. To be honest, I have some very conflicting thoughts on this at this point. I've seen some very sound reasoning all the way around on both sides of the block/ban issue. I agree that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, but I really want to AGF too. I guess it's really not that important since it's not my decision to make, but I do think it's important that the attack on Ryulong item should be addressed in any conditions that one might be willing to grant at this point. To be honest, I guess I had hoped that Doug would take a day or 3 to step away from the keyboard, but I guess we work with the tools we have. — Ched :  ?  21:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

DougsTech (talk · contribs) is requesting that his block be reversed, stating that he would like to return under the conditions laid out by Iner22 (talk · contribs) above. --auburnpilot talk 21:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We generally expect blocked users to understand the reason for their block before we unblock them, so as to make sure that they will not continue with the conduct that caused their block. I'm not sure that's the case here.  Sandstein  21:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you should make him beg, on his mother's grave. Naively I'd thought the purpose of a block was to prevent disruption, not to extort confessions, but there ya go. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't thinking asking for someone to acknowledge why they were blocked is equal to forcing them to "beg, on his mother's grave." AniMate^draw 21:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would be against any unblock after this post that says his goals were to "remove bad administrators, keep bad users from becoming administrators" and again, without saying his name, referenced Ryu's desysoping. He shows no sign on stopping his harrassment of Ryu and if he is to return that should be one of the stipulations for his return....leave Ryu alone. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• After DougsTechs's continual disruption of RfA, I wouldn't let the user have another chance. I think the editor should be permanently banned for that reason alone. All the user mostly does other than that is welcome new users at high speed. I don't a need for him/her to be around, and I think Wikipedia is better off without him/her. Let's ban DougsTech permanently. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This all seems very reasonable. Since his RfA !vote seems to be a major cause of irritation to some members of the community, and he is willing to keep away from RfA for a while, I see no reason to keep him blocked and endorse his unblocking. I'll probably just do it myself but need to wade through the miles of stuff above where he seems to have been booted off from wikipedia faster than Bush went to war in Iraq. I thought consensus was supposed to be a deliberative process! Ah. The modern world. Moves to fast for the likes of me! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't unblock against the consensus of the editors above. A new consensus to unblock needs to be formed to unban. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If you read my post carefully, you'll see that I don't think there is a consensus. What little there is seems to revolve around his RfA vote (a crusade of which I don't understand the rationale on either side). Nevertheless, a tentative ok to your request. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 22:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with R. Baley generally, but I think it would assuage our concerns if he agrees to stay away from Ryulong and RFA permanently.--chaser (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I absolutely think he should continue to participate at RFA, but if he won't agree not to engage in future personal attacks, I don't think we should unblock him. It's not about Ruylong now, it's about the next person he decides to kick while down, and then the next one, and then the next one. Wanting to stop bad admins from abusing the tools is a Good Thing. Engaging in juvenile gloating and name-calling is not. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I still believe that the entire "Bad admin abuse" case is no more then a matter of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Seeing that his [RFA explanation page] originally included a specific mention of ryu (Along with the bunch of directed incivility) i have a hard time to believe that this was solemny "For the good of removing bad admins wikipedia". Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    • That may be, or maybe not. In either case, replying with a simple "Thank you for your vote" each time, and teaching others to do the same, would completely neutralize the disruption. Let him make his point (or "POINT"), in each RFA if necessary, and move on.

      In general, by the way, I haven't found it helpful in any situation I can think of to try and decide whether the other person is trolling or not. Just respond in a way that's appropriate either way, and then don't worry about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • So the proposal now is that DougsTech should remain blocked because of what he might do? Don't you think that's taking punishment a bit too far, striking preemptively so to speak? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
      • • Malleus... that's about as thoroughly as you could have missed the point. First of all, I'm not making a "proposal", I'm talking. Blocks being preventative and not punitive is certainly not a new idea - it's what we've been saying around here for years. When I block vandals, it's to prevent further vandalism, not to "punish" them for what they've done. I learned this in my first week at Wikipedia; how is it new to you?

          If someone is doing something, and they don't indicate that they're willing to change doing it, despite being blocked for it, then we assume they'll keep doing it, and we do what's necessary to prevent disruption. DougsTech has said that he's done with Ryulong. That's different from saying he'll refrain from doing it to the next admin who's de-sysopped. Considering it's the hobby-horse he's been riding for some time now, it's not much of a stretch to say he'll still be on it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

          • It is by no means "new to me" that blocks are meant to be preventative, and neither is it new to me that they are are frequently used as a punishment. Hence the demand for recognition of sins and contrition before the block is lifted. Unlike you I don't have a crystal ball, so the kindest interpretation I can put on your hypothetical concerns for administrators who may in the future be desysopped is that it's a desperate scraping of the barrel to silence an editor who holds an opinion with which you do not agree. Hardly a "moral high ground". --Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
            • That's really the "kindest interpretation"? Have you even noticed that I support his participation in RFAs and do not agree with topic-banning him? What on Earth opinion of his am I disagreeing with? All I've come out against is kicking people who are down. I think his RFA participation is great, and I encourage it.

              A demand that an editor recognize what they were blocked for, and indicate that they won't do it again is entirely consistent with preventative blocks. If someone doesn't indicate a willingness to change, then continued blocking prevents further harm. As soon as they say they'll play by the rules, the block can be lifted.

              I have no crystal ball, and I've never claimed to have one. However, I block vandals to prevent further vandalism. When someone shows a propensity to engage in personal attacks, we block them unless and until they indicate that they're willing to play by the rules. I don't I'm saying anything controversial here, but you are welcome to read whatever interpretation you want into my words. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

              • • I think DT's contributions here are a little more complex than those of an obvious vandal and linking one with the other is not a particularly productive idea. But, here we have the editor agreeing to a set of conditions that should qualify as 'recognizing what they were blocked for' (though, to be particularly frank, after reading all this I'm not clear what exactly he was 'indef blocked' for), and that should be sufficient, under the 'quality of mercy is not strained' principle, to unblock the gentleman. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
                  • I agree that there's no apt comparison between DT and a vandal. I mention the vandal simply to respond to Malleus' suggestion that blocking people for probable future disruption is somehow out of the ordinary. I think that all blocks are to prevent possible future disruption, and that to criticize such reasoning as "crystal ball" gazing is not "a particularly productive idea". Does that seem fair? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Even if this is just a case of failing to keep cool i am especially worried by the lack of any form of well, lets call it him backing down. Even after being blocked he still has a not so friendly edit summary and took another kick at ryu. If he would at least give some indication that he believes that there might be a chance of him being wrong, rather then posting drama about admins all over the place while then i would say a cooldown period and a RFA/Ryu ban would be more then enough; But seeing that even friendly notices from non admin users | weren't taken seriously i can't see how things will go normal after an unblock. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd support an unblock per Iner22, if it is combined fully with his processing through an RfC. As I said before this was hidden from the community, (It should've been collapse-boxed, not tucked behind), an RfC provides him the fullest process, instead of the lynch mob. I recognize that his deep antipathy to the concept of admins or community review, both of which he's railed against way too much, means he will see any process against him as a kangaroo court, and decry the results as a farce. I do, however, think that going through the full process will result in a chance for any supporters of his to see all the evidence of his actions laid out far more dispassionately than AN/I can do, where comment after comment is "Oh yeah?!?! Look at this link of him doing somethign totally fucked up! We should ban him now!" followed by "Oh, c'mon! strawman !, deflection #3!" and back and forth. Run it through an RfC. Let a couple people present a timeline with links in the calmest manner. That really hasn't been done here yet. Do that, show the community, supporters as well, what he's done here; that his focus on WP is NOT writing articles but somehow becoming a part of the process wonkery, and let the community decide if we benefit from this sort of community activism from those who aren't real contributing members of the community. Then any ban won't have the mind-numbing arguments seen below about what percentage constitutes a majority. ThuranX (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps at least unblocked him in a way that allows him to defend himself, i.e. where he agrees for the time being to only comment in this discussion? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppetry

An anon user, 96.255.198.219 (talk · contribs), started editing last night while all was going down with DT. The user then posted this and this to DT's talk page. Now this wouldn't be anything, but the first post with the line "These admins are immune to your logic and find any excuse to ban people they don't like" sounds VERY much like what DT was spouting off about last night. I would recommend a checkuser before any unblock request is granted, if not anything just to be on the safeside. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Anons are allowed to stay anons - which is why someone may want to post as an anon. It's scary to think that a checkuser would use the tool to be 'on the safe side.' How is anyone going to be safer, regardless of the outcome? If it turns out that it is not Doug, it goes from a fishing expedition to an invasion of privacy. CU should not be used 'just to be safe.' Law _{type! snype?} 22:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and CU, i dont care. 96.255.198.219 (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

CU isn't used per user unless it is an alternate account. In this case, we already know what IP this user is. The checking CU would only check DT, to see if his IP matched this one. They wouldn't have to check the IP.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So this is urgent enough to bypass WP:SSI? It was a very benign couple of comments left on Doug's talk page. Law _{type! snype?} 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that it is impossible for DT to be me as he is presumably autoblocked. 96.255.198.219 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My main concern is that DougsTech is not engaging in sockpuppetry, since the statements by the anon are too close to those of DT. If he isn't, he has no worries and like Daedalus969, it would only check DT. I personally see no harm in this. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech's actual account is blocked. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been a number of cases recently of users pretending to be sockpuppets. It is not safe to take their activities at face value, including the one farther down the page that's called an "admitted" sockpuppet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

User page

My understanding is that DougsTech is indef blocked currently, pending his agreeing not to engage in uncivil comments towards a desysoped admin? On his userpage a {{banned}} template has been put up. And now all content there has also been removed. I do not think he has been banned (except perhaps from RfA? Which I would be opposed to, but I don't have time to read all the discussion). Can someone correct this improper templating and user page blanking please? I don't really want to be involved in an edit war on a user page at the center of this pitchfork and torch fest. Have a nice day! ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think he's been banned, then what would you call the 70% in favor of doing so above?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that everyone needs to calm down while this is being discussed. This rush to template other's userpages is unseemly at best and is unnecessary. Let an administrator do it if it is deemed necessary after debate has ended. AniMate^draw 22:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The template being added is on me. I added the template, it was corrected by another user. I thought the discussion was over when I added it. It obviously isn't. I apologize for what seemed like my rushing to add a template. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect ban

I have seen a large majority, yes, but not a consensus to indfinitely block or ban DougsTech. I think the indefinite block was made in error, and I think the extensive thread here is an overreaction of the community's part. DT's recent behavior has been very bad, but people seem mainly angry over his RfA votes - a reaction that seems entirely overblown to me. The incivility to Ryulong is intolerable, but not worthy of an indefinite block (a week seemed fine), and it is extremely unjust to block over the RfA votes. All in all, this adds up to an incorrect ban, in my opinion. LadyofShalott 05:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to steer clear of posting at ANI, but if I'm reading this correctly there was a shaky consensus that a small block isn't enough due to his block log.Drew Smith What I've done 05:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A community ban is a ban by the community, when a significant portion of the community agree a ban is necessary. In this case, they do. Comments like "DT's recent behavior has been very bad, but people seem mainly angry over his RfA votes - a reaction that seems entirely overblown to me. The incivility to Ryulong is intolerable, but not worthy of an indefinite block (a week seemed fine), and it is extremely unjust to block over the RfA votes. All in all, this adds up to an incorrect ban, in my opinion." indicate your personal opinion, not the opinion of the community. That you disagree with 70% of the people here doesn't make the block incorrect, since we use consensus as a governing model. Ironholds (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If it were a vote, which it isn't, I would suggest that it runs for at least two weeks, as on other language versions of Wikipedia, and that the community is made aware of it. AN/I regulars do not well represent the community at large. Also, 70% doesn't strike me as convincing, and it's less than that. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 08:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As i am writing this, if we would see this as a straw poll the results would stand at 39 Support, 18 Oppose and 9 RFC. We cannot really count the RFC's as there are a lot of duplicate votes that state they only support RFA in case an indef block receives no consensus. Counting only Support and Oppose it would mean that that currently 69% is in favor of indef, 31% is against. The amount of votes are about half that of the average RFA, and they are certainly more then i see on average proposals or polls. Also, 70% is roughly the percentage where RFA's are decided to go succesfull. If anything, we can at least say there is no concensus for not blocking him.

Personally i would say we indef him with a possibility for RFC after, say, a month. If he would open an RFC a month from now then it would indicate he would at least want to try to be constructive again. Im suggesting this because it would require initiative on Dougs side, rather then an automatic expiration of a timer. If the RFC shows that he is willing to be contructive again i will be more then happy to switch my vote from indef to allow for a second chance - and i guess more people from the indef section would agree. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is he supposed to open an RfC when he is indefinitely blocked? That makes no sense. LadyofShalott 16:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"isn't enough due to his block log" Blocks are proportional to the disruption and ending the disruption. Anything else is punitive. It seems that a lot of these people are just old enemies. Unlike most of the above, DougsTech did oppose me. So? Big deal. Get over it. Those that want to indef DougsTech are causing more of a disruption and should probably be blocked in order to prevent further disruption. The fact that Ryulong could tell DougsTech to "eat shit and die" without any kind of block only verifies that this was punitive and the wrong block. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• (bit of an ec) I concur with Lady, the actions directed toward Ryulong were a clear violation of NPA, and the block imposed by R.Baley I believe was justifiable and proper. Hopefully a week from now, the dust will have settled a bit, and everyone can approach the matter a little less emotionally. I think it's obvious that the RfA issues, and any "campaign" to get rid of "bad admins." (whatever that means) must be addressed. Doug has already stated he is willing to accept a 6 month RfA ban, and as I understand WP:DR, perhaps a RfC/U is the next logical step. If some editors believe that I'm extending AGF beyond its intended intent, ... sorry, that's just my nature. If consensus remains that Indef is the way we're going with this, well, ... not much to say at that point. I think it's overly harsh, but as always, I'll abide by that decision. You folks have a good weekend, and I'll see ya out there in the 'pedia ;) — Ched :  ?  06:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Like previous posters, I think an indef or extended block is grossly disproportionate. For such a severe sentence plenty of convincing evidence should be required. But the only serious evidence produced was the edit war at User_talk:Ryulong ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]). Evidence was also produced about DougsTech's comments on his own Talk page (One down, [28], Edit warring), but users are generally allowed much more freedom on their own Talk pages. There was a lot of complaining about other aspects of DougsTech's behaviour, but no evidence. In addition there was no sign of any serious attempt to devise and vote on other remedies - the current version of WP:ANI shows only the options "Support indefinite block" and "Oppose indefinite block". The limited evidence presented and limited range of options discussed raises strong suspicions that: this case was treated with extraordinary severity because the victim was an ex-admin; admins supporting the block did so on the say-so of other admins, rather than seeking, assessing and presenting evidence for themselves - in other words, clique behaviour. If this happened in politics, the news media would condemn it instantly. I suggest the block be reduced to 2 days (from the time of the original block) and then, if any additional action is propsed, evidence should be presented both about the grounds and to show that proposed remedies are similar to those in cases where admins and ex-admins are not involved - and then time should be allowed for debate, e.g. at least 2 days after the end of any current block on DougsTech, so he can defend himself. --Philcha (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  Philcha, hi. I agree with you that this case of incivility has been handled much more severely than are most. However, I'm not sure that it's because Ryulong was a sysop. I think it's because a lot of people have got it in for DougsTech, because people are so sore over his behavior in RFAs. There was a big push to get him topic-banned from RFA because he tends to oppose over and over again for the minimal reason "too many admins". I don't know why people are so distressed by this, but they are.

  I think that your suggestion, that this is simply admins closing ranks to protect one of their own... probably explains some of it, but not all. (It probably explains Malleus Fatuorum's bizarre fictional interpretations that you commented on earlier, for example.) I'm an admin, and I think it's great for someone to set very high standards for us, and to "take us out" if we screw up. I support what DT is doing, in general, but I cannot support his editing here at all if he's going to take his otherwise good work, and then debase it with such reprehensible taunting as we have seen in this case. Since he has declared a mission to "take out" bad admins, and he has shown a willingness to be a complete jerk about it, I don't think we should put up with anything from him unless he agrees to ditch the part where he's a jerk. There's no room for that kind of crap in the otherwise good work he's doing. No room. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  Hi, GTBacchus. I don't defend DougsTech's behaviour towards Ryulong - it was totally obnoxious and, IMO, tactically brain-dead. I proposed a 2-day block, which I think is reasonable. I would support some sort of parole about his comments to and about admins he is trying to get demoted or who have been demoted, which I think your last comment implied - so long as it is clear that the parole requires no higher standard of civility than is normally accepted during disputes. Anything beyond that smells of vindictiveness by admins towards someone who challenges them. --Philcha (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah... I probably come down harder precisely because I support his wanting to get rid of bad admins. If someone is going to undermine something I agree with so thoroughly, then I'm inclined to deal with them especially harshly. This is not to protect my fellow admins, but because identifying and "taking out" bad ones had better be done by those possessed of Clue. I don't like to see work that I consider so valuable being degraded by infantile behavior, and I'm willing to take that to the bank. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  Hmmm, in how many ways does that remind me of "... those are your political opponents, your enemies are behind you"? --Philcha (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this a ban or a block of undefined duration? I think this block should stay in place until this user makes a promise not to intentionally act disruptively, and I think think this user should be re-blocked if he breaks this promise. I think a fixed duration is pointless without some sort of indication from DT that he knew he was out of line and does not intend to act that way in the future. Preventative, not punitive. Even with that promise I don't think I will be the one to unblock this user, I do hate to be made a fool of. At this point he seems to be more content to blame a conspiracy of rouge admins than own up to his behavior, unblocking would be contrary at such a stage in the user's awareness. Chillum 06:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

40% of ANI is now DougsTech

40% of all discussion? Honestly?

Well done, everyone. 13 of the 33 visible headers in page sections on today's ANI is now the DougsTech Show, as I post this.

Since there is still apparently (?) consensus to keep him blocked, and just random interweaving discussions about "lots of other stuff", can we wrap this up now?

Or take it properly up the WP:DR food chain, as this is literally spilling over ANI now? And please, don't sub-page anything. That just hides wider discussions to the people truly interested in the matter for a deeper involvement, which then tends to cornhole situations that need more eyes, not less. DR is where this needs to go next. ANI is spent. rootology/equality 08:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like par for the course to me, but I agree w/ your suggestion. There are other pages around here, after all. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

So what's the next step "up the WP:DR food chain", and who's going to do it? --Philcha (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think an RFC/U is next. There's also the possibility of improvising. There are two main problems here, and the larger one is about DT's RFA participation. It's a larger issue because, even if DT goes away, it'll come up again, with someone else, next year. It's also the one problem that's likely to admit a non-traditional solution, which I've been pondering lately. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• we can haz collapze-boks now? cheerz, Jack Merridew 12:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Aw, I was kinda hopin' we could make all of en.wikipedia a Tale of DougsTech and his crusade against all those untowards admins. I've no worries about lifting the block if he undertakes to understand that keeping a keen, even unforgiving eye on admins is one thing, pointy snark is another. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think any "next step" must be done by Doug, not by us. I say we let things rest until he shows a more promising attitude. Chillum 06:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I expect we will hear something from him before long. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

Whack!

I have reformatted the oppose and support sections to display numbers instead of bullets, so that the number of opposes and supports can be easily viewed. I already noted this, but I feel I should put this notice here so no one has any chance of missing it. If you disagree with what I did, feel free to revert me, I won't edit war.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Good job. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Numbers are bad. This isn't RFAR or RFA.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing the numbers with an indiscriminate find/replace broke a lot of signatures and links. Just sayin'. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, by the way, that "counting" is a terrible idea. This is not any kind of vote. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad Idea — others, and now I are attempting to sort the mess out. Have a minnow. Jack Merridew 06:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ya, it was, but the real question is are you going to admit that you're wrong. Your first claim that I am the cause of the signature break, but then I proved you wrong, when I cited what actually happened. You proceed to call me a troll, which is a personal attack, for requesting an explanation of your wrongful labeling. I didn't destroy formatting, I tried to make readability a bit easier. Where was your good faith, why did you throw it out the window with me. What the hell did I ever do to you? You can't blank this message from here, as it is on topic; even if you do evade like you did on your talk page, at least others will see that you are unwilling to admit you were wrong.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You want the full-sized fish? You started this mess by refatoring in an inappropriate manner. You don't get to tromp all over Tokyo.

• +User:SheffieldSteel/AGFAFAIR

Sneers, Jack Merridew 06:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Refactor? Get your facts straight, I didn't refactor anything. I changed the formatting slightly to improve readability, I even said what I was doing. It isn't out of bounds to assume good faith there, so again, what the hell is your problem?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ya, you refactored the formatting: bad idea, disruptive; all the rest follows from that. Please don't get the idea that I consider you much of a problem; you only warranted a minnow, after all. I already offered you a link about all the shrill cries for Good Faith — which seems to be the core argument for keeping Doug underfoot. AGF has limits. There's another essay you need to grok; it concerns patches of ground that contain traces of equine DNA and fragments of sticks. There's surely a handy shortcut for it. Try typing a few of the obvious ones into the search box. Jeers, Jack Merridew 06:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Get real folks. Using the count of people's opinion as the sole measure of a decisions is foolish. But intentionally disregarding this information is equally foolish. Numbers are part of the decision, not all of it, not none of it. Chillum 06:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The degree to which numbers are useful is the degree to which they're obvious without counting. If you have to count to see which side has more support, that means neither side is overwhelmingly correct. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)