Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:19, 5 May 2009

Home	Talk	Contribs	Edit Count	eMail	Sandbox

Bubble tea!

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

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

Blocked indefinitely / now unblocked

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

FYI: Misplaced Pages:AN/I#Xeno, DougsTech, and indefinite block Microchip08 17:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears you've been unblocked. I would urge you to consider contributing the encyclopedia, rather than throwing wrenches in its inner workings. regards, –xeno 17:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, DougsTech, as someone who has defended your "right" to make those comments in the RfAs, please do help with some articles. We could really and especially appreciate help at Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron. Show your detractors wrong by rescuing some articles and maybe even scoring some Template:Did you knows in the process! It would greatly help your position and those like myself who have argued in your defense would greatly appreciate it! This way, your critics will have to concede, "Sure he says to oppose all admins, but at the same time he's also doing rescue and DYK work." If you earn some rescue and DYK credits, it will make it that much more difficult for anyone to second guess your motivations here. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, A Nobody. Admins like Xeno are making my opinion very easy to prove. When he blocked me, he exercised very bad judgment. He is exactly the kind of person that we should keep from ever becoming an admin. --DougsTech (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately they give you too much power over them, and thereby prove your point. --KP Botany (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've taken the liberty to make you a helpful template. It's in my sandbox but feel free to copy it over to yours, modify it, put it in your own words, etc. I posted this at AN/I but the thread was promptly archived. So here it is. Enjoy!

From AN/I thread:

Where do we go from here? I've created a template that might solve any misconceptions regarding DougsTech's votes. If DT can use them, it's a cheerful alternative to any further drama.

{{subst|User:Wikidemon/sandbox/dougstemplate}} - ~~~~

- produces -

Oppose Too many administrators currently. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That appears to sum up my reasoning very clearly. I will modify the template and begin to use it, hopefully that will help to stop some of the drama. --DougsTech (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent solution. Good work, Wikidemon. :) -GTBacchus 20:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a very thoughtful little action, Wikidemon. --KP Botany (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's the Xeno rule! Either edit in the mainspace or you will be blocked indefinitely! I love it! When will this become a guideline/policy? Hopefully soon. I'm drooling with anticipation. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • What did you hope to accomplish by coming here and making a sarcastic comment like that after this drama has already settled down? Xeno did what he thought was right, and there are undoubtedly other admins that would agree with his action. You really need to just be happy that DougsTech was unblocked and your viewpoint (let's allow a disruptive SPA to cause more drama) prevailed. Just drop it, please. Timmeh! 00:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • You must also notice that supporters of my !votes never start drama. It is always those who disagree with me that reply to the !votes and therefore engage in drama. --DougsTech (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I have not yet come a cross one person who agrees with your oppose rationale. Anyway, there will always be editors unfamiliar with you that will ask questions or start up new discussions, which leads to unnecessary drama and disruption. That's why so many editors wanted you topic banned, and that's why I am slightly satisfied by Wikidemon's proposal and your acceptance of it. As long as you contribute constructively to the encyclopedia (something you haven't been doing over the past month) and adequately explain your stance, there will be fewer editors who will want you banned or blocked. Timmeh! 00:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• What I was pointing out was the absurdity of Xeno's actions. I will always take administrators to task when they act well outside of policy and guideline. What Xeno did was irresponsible, not in keeping with consensus, and guaranteed to cause problems. In my opinion, with actions like that he has absolutely no business being an administrator. He should resign in disgrace. But, I'll guarantee he won't. Why? Because too many administrators here think being an administrator is a right and entitlement that gives them power to do whatever the hell they want without consequence. It's disgusting and repulsive. DougsTech is absolutely right. There are too many administrators, most especially ones with a complete disconnect from how policy and guideline is supposed to be implemented here. His votes are perfectly in keeping with the highest ideals of RfA and he is working to change the system for its betterment. Xeno just happened to conveniently prove the point. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hammersoft, please remember that beyond all other things we are here to make an encyclopedia. I don't think it is way out there to expect those that participate here work on the encyclopedia at least as often as they cause disruption. Perhaps not codified in policy, but it should be. "Resign in disgrace"? Such hyperbole. Chillum 02:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Far from hyperbole Chillum. What Xeno did was wrong, and there's no excuse for it. I am not alone in this opinion (see the Admin Recall section of ). There isn't any policy that says you have to edit the mainspace to be a contributor here. I rarely add anything to the mainspace. Most of the time I'm removing things in fact, on the infrequent occasions that I do edit mainspace. Hell, DougsTech does a hell of a lot MORE work in mainspace than I do! It's NOT a reason to block someone. The notion that DT was blockable for not editing the mainspace is a complete bullfritters reason. Had Xeno taken even a moment's time, he would have seen that the discussion at WT:RFA was far from consensus that DougsTech should be topic banned, much less indefinitely blocked. So that's a bullfritters reason. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Funny. 500 edits to mainspace for Xeno takes you back to 20 March 2009. For DougsTech, 23 March 2009. In other words, DougsTech is editing the mainspace at a slightly faster pace than Xeno is. It's also true that DougsTech's percentage of edits of total to mainspace is TWICE that of Xeno's. See for yourself; DougsTech and Xeno. Perhaps Xeno should block himself for not editing the msinspace enough. Hey, if he can block DougsTech for it, he should block himself under the same metric. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  Hammersoft, if you want to discuss my administrative actions, my talk page would probably be an appropriate place to do so. –xeno 13:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have nothing further to directly say about this admin action of yours. I do hope you resign. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Amen Hammersoft! This is exactly why I vote the way I do. Admins think they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and however they want. The admins always stick up for each other even though the first was wrong. Pedro removed himself from sysop simply to please the crowd that was calling for his removal...then swiftly added himself back. They don't take responsibility for their actions. We need to work to remove all the bad and malicious admins before we add any more. --DougsTech (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I AM NOT VERY GOOD WITH WIKIPEDIA SO KEEP THAT IN MIND

HELLO. YOU DELETED A CHANGE I MADE ON A PAGE, BUT THE CHANGE I MADE WAS A REQUEST TO REMOVE SOMETHING FALSE THAT WAS PLACED ON THE PAGE? BUT YOU DIDN'T REMOVE THE FALSE THING ON THE PAGE YOU SEE. INSTEAD OF REMOVING MY EDIT BECAUSE IT WAS BAD, YOU SHOULD HAVE TAKEN NOTE OF ITS NATURE AND TAKEN MORE SUITABLE ACTION. I DO NOTICE THAT ON THIS PAGE, THERE ARE SEVERAL CASES OF PEOPLE COMPLAINING THAT YOU HAVE REVERTED THE REMOVALS OF VANDALISM. WHILE I WAS NOT SURE IF I WAS ALLOWED TO REMOVE THE VANDALISM MY EDIT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO DRAW ATTENTION TO MISUSE OF WIKIPEDIA AND YOU REVERTED BACK SO THAT MY EFFORTS WERE WASTED. PLEASE RECTIFY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.155.113 (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

YOU SEE, YOU ARE SPEAKING IN ALL CAPS. THIS IS CONSIDERED YELLING OR BEING IN CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL. BUT TRY PRESSING THE CAPS LOCK KEY WICH IS JUST NEXT TO THE A KEY. See what it will do! Pretty small letters. --Mixwell! 21:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes please don't yell when trying to contact another editor,It can get very annoying when you have people yell at you.Please in the kindest way remove your caps lock and use proper punctuation.

Thanks

-Staffwaterboy 00:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpupet investigation

I have filed a sockpuppet investigation against you concerning a particpation in an RfA by another user. The request is at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/DougsTech. —Mythdon t/c 02:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, this is really sad. Community consensus shows that I vote within the rules, and not here to disrupt. Yet users still accuse me of violating every policy they can think of simply because they disagree with me. If another user (probably an admin under another name, or you) wants to mimic my votes, then that is their choice. Go ahead and get the checkuser over with...so that we can solve this nonsense once and for all.DougsTech (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A lack of community consensus for a topic ban is not the same thing as a community consensus that you vote withing the rules. Don't mistake a lack of action with approval. Chillum 02:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus has always show against the proposal. --DougsTech (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, consensus is against blocking you. What I am trying to communicate is that is not the same thing as approval. Chillum 02:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps now isn't the right time for this, given he was just accused of sockpuppetry that he doesn't seem to have had anything to do with. He's probably quite angry about it, and I don't blame him. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 02:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is the 2nd time one has been opened against me...and like everything else, it fails. --DougsTech (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The account doesn't seem to have anything to do with you. Someone just seems to be imitating you. Perhaps not being such an appetising target for imitation might help. It's also easier to exonerate you when I don't get edit conflicts every ten seconds... --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 02:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It is also being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_sock. Sincerely, --A Nobody 02:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Routine en.wiki behaviour, DougsTech. A bunch of admins + friends disagrees with an editor, the community doesn't ban him, a rampant sock puppet investigation is launched, the editor is banned for sock puppetry (see User:Tajik as an example, one of my least favorite editors ever, yet even I knew he was not a puppet master, but heck, he's a university student, so there were enough admins to conduct the witch hunt to get him permanently banned--sadly it didn't matter that they missed his ethnicity so badly no one who had ever interacted with him believed the sock puppetry).

The current round is that this is how you will go down: enough false and faked sock puppet accusations will be posted from enough random IPs to eventually narrow down your area and down you go.

Just kidding, no one would do that. Be careful, it's a terrible thing to be right. but it's almost always the right thing. --KP Botany (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting sock puppetry accusation, by the way. It's based upon your requesting rollback and starting from the ground running with various vandal fighting tools, which, by the way, you used badly, and still, sometimes do. So, essentially, the accusation is that you are too experienced to be anything but a sock puppet? Well, you weren't all that experienced when you started, and you still aren't. Still, vandal fighting is useful, and you do a lot of good article watching in main space when you are doing it.

But like I said above, the fact that the Tajik socks were saying anti-Tajik things, that Tajik fought outrageously against, was no prevention to the accusation that they were his sock puppets--and his eventual ban. Someone will make one stick against you, I'm betting.

By the way, I support your votes for exactly what they are. --KP Botany (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I don't know how long you've had it, but I just noticed your little RfA linky that leads to . Hopefully this keeps drama down a bit. Thanks for being amenable over the whole business. Cheers, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"They do whatever they want"

Yep, that's right. All of us admins are sick bastards who lie around on IRC drinking martinis and thinking up our next scheme. I mean, how much more obvious can it get? This guy was obviously just having a bad day, and should have been left alone. There was no reason at all to lock down his talk page, or hell, to even block him in the first place. And people like this or this or this? Pfft, just let them alone, they're not a problem.

Now where was I? Ah, yes, on to the admins' abusive delete buttons. Removing such Nobel-winning material such as this and this. Tsk, such a shame, a shame. (My god, I wish I could show you some of the more choice stuff that isn't so obvious just by the titles...) And those are just from a cursory look through my deletion log. Some admins make thousands more deletions than I do. The abuse just goes on and on, so sad...

I mean, it's not like admins have to put up with IP-hopping vandals with theoretical access to nearly 1/100 of the ENTIRE FREAKING INTERNET or anything. And we are never, ever attacked either. Ever. This job is so good, I don't imagine how anyone would ever want to quit it. Oh wait...

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? ALL (read: 100%) of the stuff I linked to there, except for the very last one, IS FROM TODAY, AS IN, WITHIN THE LAST FREAKING TWENTY-FOUR HOURS. And all those are involving just me, ONE admin. And most of the time, I actively try to avoid drama.

Is it any wonder that sometimes we crack? Jesus H. Christ, how you can pass a blanket judgment that all admins are inherently bad, when you don't even know the first thing about what we have to put up with, is beyond me. Get a freaking life. J.delanoy_adds 03:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering what prompted this... J.delanoy_adds 03:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear. –Juliancolton |  03:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if your actions weren't all conducted 100% in secret, regular peon worthless editors might know a single thing about how tough it is to be an admin. --KP Botany (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, which of the links J.delanoy provided were secret? –Juliancolton |  03:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, they all must be, Juliancolton, since they're so secret, even the first thing about the angst and horror of being an admin is kept from us poor peons--note, this is J.delanoy's claim that that the hallowed, self-worshiped gods have to put up with horrors so awful they're kept secret from everyone who isn't an admin. Or was I mistaken and it was just DougsTech, individually, among all non-administrators who doesn't know the first thing.

I have to ask myself, how could J.delanoy know that DougsTech doesn't know the first thing? Is J.delanoy a mind reader? Well, obviously not. So, the conclusion is, that J.delanoy speaks the truth and this information of the horrors that should have non-admins feeling sorry is simply secret. --KP Botany (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, KP, there are 60 people in #wikipedia-en-admins. 60 out of 847. That's 7.08%. What about the other 92.92%? WEA is the only "sekkrit" place for admins, and everything else is open. WP:ANI is open. wikien-l is open. Until you know what you're talking about, don't accuse admins of being "super secretive". Xclamation point 03:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, wtf, was J.delanoy misspoken when he said, "when you don't even know the first thing about what we gods have to put up with, is beyond me. Get a freaking life. J.delanoygabsadds 03:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)?" How can he possibly be speaking the truth if everything is so out in the open? It must, indeed, be secret, since we don't know "the first thing about what gods have to put up with." All evidence is 100% secret and hidden. Oh, wait, maybe because it isn't all that terrible. No, I assume good faith, that J.delanoy spoke accurately about my little knowledge.

So, X!, until you know what you are talking about, and until it agrees with J.delanoy's proclamation that no non-administrator knows the first thing about the hardship, the horror, the woes, the ills, the angst, the anxiety, the horror, the shock, the terror, and the degradation of being an admin, I have to assume us peons are in ignorance, not because we're so stupid we choose to be in ignorance when we could choose otherwise, after all, we're writing this encyclopedia alongside you glorious, hallowed, supreme beings, but because you gods are keeping things secret from us.

This, X!, is the sort of thing you're supposed to use IRC for: to collude before you speak. --KP Botany (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe J.delanoy meant to imply that all non-administrators are clueless noobs who know nothing about what the job of an administrator actually is. He was reacting to a comment made by DougsTech which seemed to reflect an attitude uncommon among Misplaced Pages editors of any group. To Doug: I am not an admin, but I am on IRC more than most anybody and I can attest to the fact that a lot of administrator actions originate outside the #admins channel. Also, keep in mind that private messages, email, and voice chat are all in use by admins and non-admins alike, and they are as inaccessible to uninvolved admins as #admins is to us. No conversation medium is 100 percent public because not everyone wants the world to see everything they say. Moreover, there are dozens of Misplaced Pages-related IRC channels and I don't think it would be possible for anybody to keep up with all of them, even if they were logged in 24/7. So even the administrators miss the vast majority of conversations related to actions on Misplaced Pages. As a last note, I don't think the administrator who blocked you was logged on to IRC at the time he did it, unless he uses a name I'm not familiar with. --- Soap /_{Contributions} 12:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

When I said you don't know what we have to put up with, it is not because you cannot see it, it is just because it does not affect you in any way. All the stuff I linked to was perfectly open to view, but it was buried in my log and various page histories. If you looked deeper, I suppose you would find much more, but there is no reason for you to do that, since it has no effect on you. Walking a mile in someone else's shoes can do wonders, and that has nothing to do with "sekrit" stuff. If something does not affect you, you tend not to notice it, even though you are perfectly capable of doing so. Let me assure you, I notice all the shit I put up with, and I think it's about time that people who are accusing admins of all being "bad" look at what the job is like. And don't tell me I don't know what it's like not being an admin. J.delanoy_adds 13:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll toast to that, J.delanoy. Xclamation point raises his martini. Xclamation point 03:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm an active admin who stays the heck away from IRC. That places rots your brain! Seriously. Having a life makes one a better admin. Most of us are pretty open and transparent, I believe. We're human, and we've got faults, but most of us are quite decent, when approached with reasonableness, dignity, and understanding. A lot of us are pretty cool, I'd even venture. -GTBacchus 04:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A Wikipedian is cool?. NW (Talk) 04:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, now. :) –Juliancolton |  04:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That brings up another point. The private discussions that go on at that private chat room. They don't discuss things where we can see them...they use that chat room so they can come back here and all agree with each other. My only way of trying to stop mthis kind of malicious behavior is by opposing RfAs, and I get harassed over that. --DougsTech (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As an editor, you are suppose to assume good faith here. Your talk page comments on User talk:Myownusername are not assumptions of good faith. Instead of voicing your bad faith assumptions, you should keep them to yourself. Thanks. —Mythdon t/c 04:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tell that to all the editors who proposed topic banning me, blocking me, accusing me of suckpuppetry and so on. --DougsTech (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech, I think what some of us are telling you, and you can believe this or not, is that most admins don't have anything to do with that "private chat room". There is not a group of admins that "all agree with each other" and go around enforcing that. More of us opposed topic banning you than supported it. The community of admins is almost as varied as the community of editors. Thinking of Misplaced Pages admins as some kind of monolithic, single-minded entity will lead you into error, because it's not true. Just like any other group of Internet people, we haven't got the social skills to form a really cohesive network of cooperation. Sad but true. -GTBacchus 05:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh shut up, all of you, and go edit something. //roux   05:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• no u. :P -GTBacchus 05:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• No. —Mythdon t/c 05:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Agree ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk 15:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering...

Haven't you thought about article building rather than doing automated vandalism reverts all the time? Timmeh! 23:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)