Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:04, 10 April 2009

Home	Talk	Contribs	Edit Count	eMail	Sandbox

your !vote...

I noticed that you started putting your !vote at RfA's in the Neutral section as compared to the oppose... I have no problem with it there and can actually support it there. Oppose, IMO, is when there is something about the candidate that deserves an oppose.---I'm Spartacus! 21:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I still think there are too many admins, but in that particular case I think that that editor would add to the "good" of the admins, and possibly counter all the disruptive admins. --DougsTech (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if you started putting it routinely in the Neutral section, you might encounter less hostility. It'll have the same affect, but when it comes in the oppose section, people get finicky... they want to see a reason for a specific individual, not some generic philosophical one. Some people take opposes more personally than others. In the neutral section, you have a little more lieghway to put subjective statements. In the Neutral section, I would fully support your !vote... in the oppose section, I will tend to agree with Majorly as it comes off negatively and pointy.---I'm Spartacus! 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If you used the neutral section to put out your belief about admins instead of oppose, I would gladly strikeout my !vote to topic ban you, and you'd likely not be harassed by other editors nearly as much about it. Timmeh! 00:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• If you'd stop harassing DougsTech on this issue, I'd gladly strike my vote to topic ban you from this page. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I offer DougsTech an alternative to his actions that would prevent any topic ban, and you still badger me about it. I think you need to stop harassing me on every comment I make here, stop with the accusations, and take a little time away from this whole issue so you can calm down. Timmeh! 14:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Question; how many posts of yours blasting DougsTech for his votes do you think it will take before he understands that you do not approve of his actions? You've already made 19 posts on this page over the last few days. Unless he is like me, a certified idiot, I think he gets it now. You do NOT need to keep badgering him about it. I'm not the one that needs to calm down. You are the one that persists in badgering him. If you don't want to be reminded of this, all you have to do is drop it and walk away. Continuing to blast him about it will result in nothing pleasant. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The only badgering being done is by you, responding to all of my posts here whether they concern you or not. In fact, the majority of those 19 posts you decided to count are responses to you or someone else, not directed at DougsTech (and absolutely not intended to badger him about his !votes). But since you feel so strongly about speaking on DougsTech's behalf and making uncivil comments every time I make a post here, I will not post here anymore. Timmeh! 15:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Per WP:TPG:

On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred.

DougTech is within his rights to remove comments. Visitors here should respect that. Kablammo (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This disruption needs to stop

You have been told many times by numerous users that your voting on RfA is disruptive. The reason you give is in no way related to the candidate at hand. Otherwise fine admin candidates are getting oppose votes from you for something unrelated to them or the RfA process. Please stop. This is in no way putting forward your idea that we have to many admins, the correct forum for trying to convince others of that idea is at WT:RfA. Your bot-like posting of the exact same comment on RfA after RfA without any regard to the subject of the RfA is pointless and is causing drama.

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from attempting to convince people of your viewpoint in the appropriate forums, however when people disagree with you it is not okay to go from forum to forum spamming the idea. If people don't agree with you in one place, then they will not agree with you at 20 different RfAs as well. Especially if you simply repeat the same mantra without any attempt whatsoever to provide new arguments or a demonstration of how it relates to the page at hand. Please seek more productive methods of convincing others.

I am now assuming you know this is not a productive method of debate. I am assuming you know these postings are disruptive. If you continue to post the same thing on AfDs unrelated to your point I will consider you to be deliberately and intentionally attempting to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Chillum 00:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You are free to consider whatever you want. I have already said this is not the case. My !votes are within policy. The only disruption is the users who are making the various threads everywhere to discuss it. --DougsTech (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, perhaps you have read the long AN thread about this. There is no consensus to restrict Doug's !votes. Skinwalker (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Skin, that discussion was about a topic ban. Not being topic banned in no way allows disruptive editing. Chillum 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Chillum, you are welcome to your opinions regarding DougsTech's voting. I do not see any reason for DougsTech to stop what he is doing. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A trout on all your houses

This is not an acceptable edit summary. Edit warring is not an acceptable way to handle this either. Please stop.--Tznkai (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So, is this acceptable as a summary? You should be discussing this with the other admin that posted it in the first place. --DougsTech (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In the 2 minutes you chose to dig up that diff and reply, you may have clicked on my contributions and found I in fact, have brought this up with Chillium. Having an action be called trolling does not invite you to do the same thing. Not only is it dubious by any number of behavioral standards, its entirely unproductive." There is a great deal of disagreement from others about your votes, I understand you will not likely change your mind, but it behooves you to learn to respond to those concerns with the utmost of calm.--Tznkai (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi Doug! I am pretty ardently defending your "right" to make your opinion in multiple threads and am willing to continue to do so; however, please do not be baited or exacerbate things further, i.e. even if someone reverts you as "trolling", I urge you not to revert in kind. Please don't make it where those of us trying to stand up for you feel well, I think you see what I mean. Be the bigger man as it were. I do also strongly encourage you to consider the individual candidates. I don't expect you to agree with my criteria, but please maybe consider even if you want to oppose "per too many admins" at least doing it in a copy and paste manner, i.e., maybe say, "While I respect this candidate as an editor and like his contributions to x or y aspect of Misplaced Pages, nevertheless, I oppose out of principal" or something that at least doesn't feel like just a vote? Thanks for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, A Nobody! In all the discussion (and personal attacking by others), I may have overlooked all the editors that are standing up for their right to voice their opinion and participate in RfA !voting and discussion. For this, I thank them. We must all work to retain wikipedia's original purpose. I do look at every individual candidate. In Neuro's case, I just couldn't oppose. He is a great asset to Misplaced Pages. I believe he would be one of the "good" admins, and not participate in all the cabal that seems to take place by the admins. With the others, from what I can see, they have not demonstrated that they they would be better than the rest. I will definitely consider your request, perhaps it will stir less controversy, as that is NOT the desired outcome. --DougsTech (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's encouraging. Best, --A Nobody 02:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If the desired outcome is not to stir controversy, why not make your comments in the Neutral? There your voice would still be heard, but it wouldn't create the drama that is going along with it right now. Right now, you are not being heard, you are losing credibility. In the Neutral Section, people might listen.---I'm Spartacus! 21:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

But I also want to make the best attempt possible to keep further admins from being promoted, because there are already too many. I don't mind new GOOD admins being added, but the abusive admins must be removed. --DougsTech (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Then find a reason why specific people shouldn't be admins. Do your homework and make your opposes specific to the individual. Research a candidates contributions and if you can find a solid reason(s) to oppose them, then do so. Make a case that User:X isn't qualified to be an admin, your blanket opposes do not achieve the stated goal you just made. In fact, they lead people (even those who will defend you) into thinking less of you. Cut-n-paste support/opposes are meaningless and nobody is ever going to "Oppose per DT" based on the rationale you are currently giving. Now, if you give an oppose where you cite specific issues---the user showed repeated incivility, repeatedly nominates articles for CSD that they shouldn't, gets into edit wars, then people might listen to you.---I'm Spartacus! 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's quite obvious that people are listening to DougsTech, what with all the bruhaha is contributions to RfAs have caused. If he wants to continue as he has, there's no valid reason for him to stop. Putting his vote in neutral or oppose is irrelevant. RfA is about consensus, not vote counting. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA

I would like you to nominate me for RfA. What do you say? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A few questions...Why do you want me (and not someone else) to do it? Why not nom yourself? This may be a good way to see if the community is voting on the nominator or the person nominated. And, would you be open to recall? --DougsTech (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to answer your questions fully, but have reverted that long winded and perhaps rash (never a good sign for an Admin!) response to the page history. Truth be told, my first priority would be to find a suitable co-nom for editors like user:Kelapstick, user:Bongomatic, user:Dravecky, and user:Rjanang (or whatever he goes by these days) who I think are good people who've done a great job working on the encyclopedia and should be considered for Adminship. They are all human, so if there are already too many Admins maybe they're not suitable, but I've enjoyed working with them and I think they're the kind of people and editors that we should consider giving the tools. Let me know what you think. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ooops and user:Drmies too. He might be a tad green in the gills, but with a bit of seasoning he's a first rate candidate despite his misguided notions in disagreeing with me on lots of vital subjects. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh and of course user:MichaelQSchmidt as well. I see from your user page that you are a deletionist, but there's no arguing that MQS isn't one heck of a nice guy. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems perfectly within my guidelines for becoming an admin. I will go ahead and do the nom, and we'll see how it goes. I too don't expect too much support, but its worth a try. --DougsTech (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What about your concern that there are already too many admins? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That is done case by case. These RfA directions are extremely confusing. --DougsTech (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You sure popped it up there fast enough. I figured you must be some kind of expert who does RfA noms all the time. Exactly how many have you done? Also DT I have to ask you to correct one thing in the nom. I do not always make sure to leave warnings. Sometimes I'm in a rush and if it's between leaving it be or reverting without warning, I revert without warning. I think I had a discussion with another editor about it once. Were it a perfect world I would certainly always warn. I would also always leave welcome templates. I would save every worthy article at AfD, and vote on every AfD, and use edit preview more, and do a lot more article editing and... well you catch my drift? But anyway, my point is that I would appreciate it if you could perhaps tweak your statement so as to be entirely accurate. I am adamantly opposed to vandals and vandalism if that helps.

Also I'm still a bit concerned that if neither of us think I have a good shot at being voted into office, perhaps a viable candidate would be a better way to go? Are you nomming me because you think I would be a good admin or to prove a point? I don't want anyone to feel we're engaged in purely symbolic gesture which is perhaps tantamount to dramaneering. If you're up for a challenge, why not challenge yourself to nominating MQS? :) He's a fantastic editor who saves a lot of articles and is always willing to lend a hand, he takes accountability for his actions, and he's always willing work through differences. :) Let me know what you think. Thanks for your time and consideration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at your edit history and saw the warnings. I think you definitely would make a good admin. The only thing that may hold you back is having been here only 6 months. I have never submitted an RfA, but I have never been asked to either. --DougsTech (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

DT what about the idea of nomming one of the other editors I mentioned? Is that a better way to go? I will review your response before making my final decision, and as I'm a bit pooped I'd like to make my next "move", if you will in the am, if that's okay with you. If I need to act more promptly please let me know. And thank you kindly for nomming me. I consider it a real honor, especially coming from an experienced veteran of strong convictions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If they were to ask me to nom them, I would consider it. I am not against self-noms either, if they would like it, they can go ahead. But, sure anytime you can accept or decline the nom. --DougsTech (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused on which noms you oppose then? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I oppose those that would add to the current negative population of the admins. We dont need more bad admins, I oppose those that might be that way. --DougsTech (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I suspect that between Doug's current situation with the discontent in the community, and the lack of tenure that COM has (a little less than 6 mo.), you may meet a fair amount of resistance. Also, being that COM does a lot of work in some more contentious areas will likely pull in a lot of oppose votes from those who disagree with her/his viewpoint. Just an observation, and I wish you both the best of luck ;) — Ched :  ?  01:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

True. I am also concerned about the improbability of success and whether the long odds undermine what I otherwise consider a worthwhile endeavor. Thank you for your comment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I found it odd that I had just mentioned an RfA for ChildofMidnight at Drmies talk page today (of course in a conversation about bacon)...A half hour before you put it up (and I hadn't read this page). While I agree CoM would make a great admin, I think that there will be some resistance, not because of his short time here, but because of the controversy in his edits, I don't always agree with the method, but for the most part I agree with the intention. I can understand CoMs hesitation to accept, but I support whatever decision is made. You have a lot of opponents here, but you also have a lot of friends. I would also support any of the editors that CoM suggested too, except for Rjanang, since I don't know him/her.--kelapstick (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You support all of them? I thought Dravecky sold their soul for some Baconnaise on the Bacon mania AfD? BTW, I think, K-stick, you said it very nicely. I think I agree. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I misread COM's RFA, and thought it was a selfnom. The revert of your edit was an accident. //roux   07:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Time is of the essence...

Hey DT. I'm curious if you've had any new thoughts about our discussion regarding my Admin nom and the possibility of nominating someone else whose chances are better? My "field polling" seems to indicate that my chances of becoming an Admin at this point in time are at or near absolute zero (which isn't even a number, so it's fair to say they are not very good). I'm thinking maybe focusing on another editor who's been working away quietly and who would contribute in a positive and meaningful way as an Admin might be the way to go. There is after all a lot of good work I can do without being made an admin. Is there soemthing useful in following through on the nomination if there's no real chance for success? While it might provide some entertainment (hilarity?) and a chance for some folks to let off some steam by throwing fruit (as one editor suggested), I don't want anyone to feel slighted or disrespected or to infer that the process and the responsibilities entailed in being an Admin aren't being taken seriously. I have no desire to be disruptive or dramatic. Also, since the initial nom proposal and discussion started, I've been increasingly busy with stuff on and off Wiki so I'm not going to have the time to do anything until after this weekend. Thanks for your patience. Let me know what you think. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)