| Revision as of 21:50, 31 May 2009 view sourceMC10 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,589 edits Undid revision 293573205 by DougsTech (talk) – your userpage has been restored← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:55, 31 May 2009 view source Aitias (talk | contribs)Rollbackers50,076 edits Undid revision 293592193 by MC10 (talk); please stop reverting in other user's user space -- if DougsTech wants it that way, that's fine.Next edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| I am currently blocked from editing. I opposed some admins, so they came at me with a ton of deletions and blocks. Don't ever make an admin mad, they will use their tools against policy to silence or get rid of you, just because they don't like you. Overall, I was successful in my goals. The 2 goals I set were - remove bad administrators, keep bad users from becoming administrators. At least 1 bad administrator was removed, and countless others kept from being promoted. --] (]) 06:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | I am currently blocked from editing. I opposed some admins, so they came at me with a ton of deletions and blocks. Don't ever make an admin mad, they will use their tools against policy to silence or get rid of you, just because they don't like you. Overall, I was successful in my goals. The 2 goals I set were - remove bad administrators, keep bad users from becoming administrators. At least 1 bad administrator was removed, and countless others kept from being promoted. --] (]) 06:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *Unfortunately, you're on the wrong side of things. The wrong side is decided by the mass, not by you or any review of policy. You should not violate the no personal attacks policy. That was clearly out of line. But, that policy is routinely ignored on the project. I've been insulted lord knows how many times, and not one of those editors has ever been blocked for attacking me, even one who called me the lowest form of editor and another who called me the most ignorant and disrespectful editor on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| *I think the reason you were blocked is nebulous at best. You toed the line on what is allowed here, regardless of whether it's in policy or not, and got your head shot off for it. I don't think anyone can pinpoint specific things that amount to "this is the reason, right HERE" why. It's a summation of things, and this last was the straw. | |||
| *I find it telling that no particular reason for the block has been given, other than the thread at AN/I, which is disorganized and allows for all sorts of opinions to be spoken. So, the very loose "community has lost patience" bludgeon is applied. | |||
| *I don't know the particulars of the Ryulong case. I don't particularly care. I'm just not interested in reading arb cases. In abstract, I think there's plenty of people who are happy when a bad administrator gets knocked out of the picture. That's a net positive for the project. I can think of a few other cases where this has happened. Being happy about a net positive shouldn't be something to block someone for. | |||
| *I also think it absurd that some hold the opinion that an editor ''must'' start articles and/or contribute significant text to articles in order to be an editor in good standing here. That policy simply does not exist. Wanting to block someone for it is wrong, pure and simple. For the non-DougsTech reading here, I am NOT referring to any one person, but to the general abstract belief that people must contribute text to articles to be permitted to remain here. There's a zillion ways one can contribute here, and adding text to articles is just one of them. Yes, it's an important one, but it's only one. | |||
| *In ''my'' interpretation of the no personal attacks policy, you were out of line and clearly so. You need to make amends for the attack. I do not think you should voice displeasure at Ryulong's desysop (that would be dishonest), but you should apologize for attacking him for it. There's no call to be attacking someone, regardless of the reason. | |||
| *I also think you should ask for a ''specific'' reason why you were blocked. You can't hope to fix the problem if you are not made aware of the specific problem that was out of line. --] (]) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==My opinion== | |||
| DT. I think you need to a take a short break anyway, but when you do post here, I suggest you take ownership for your inappropriate behavior toward a desysoped admin. Gloating and taunting is unacceptable. I know you have been attacked for taking unpopular stands, but the concerns over your behavior with regard to Ryulong appear to be legitimate and to warrant action to prevent their reoccurence. I suggest you acknowledge your errors and provide a committment to avoid repeating them in the future. If you were to do so on the up and up, I would expect your editing privileges to be restored. ] (]) 17:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Echoing ChildofMidnight... DougsTech, I support your participation in RFAs, and I support your principled stance regarding bad admins. However, I can neither defend nor condone going to the page of someone who's been de-sysoped and kicking them while down. Please understand that such an action undermines the solid principles that you hold; it cheapens them. The moral high-ground is actually a very nice place to stand - stick to it, and keep the faith, you know? -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with GTBacchus, I respect your opinion, and your statment on bad admins (you should write an WP Essay about it when you get unblocked so you people will understand your piont). But please do keep the good faith, and you should stand fine while cleaning wikipedia of rouge/unprepared amdins. ] <sup> ] </sup> 04:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=I agree with the conditions listed here - . |decline=There is currently no solid consensus to release this block. Please wait until the discussion is concluded. Thanks for your patience. <font face="Arial"> ] (])</font> 23:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)}} | {{unblock reviewed|1=I agree with the conditions listed here - . |decline=There is currently no solid consensus to release this block. Please wait until the discussion is concluded. Thanks for your patience. <font face="Arial"> ] (])</font> 23:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)}} | ||
| As much as I would like to see you unblocked, I just don't see it happening. These admins are immune to your logic and find any excuse to ban people they don't like. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I agree, IP. But we shall see. --] (]) 21:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I've noted your request for unblock at AN/I. --] ] 21:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Heh, I have probably said too much already, back to fixing typos in articles so i don't get banned as well. ] (]) 21:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hey Doug, I noticed that you've agreed to stay away from RfA for 6 months, and I wanted to offer you another suggestion. It may help matters if you also agreed to avoid Ryulong for that length of time as well. I think the interactions with him/her may have played a large part in the block matters. I'd honestly like to see you back constructively editing here as much as many of the others. If an administrator does accept the unblock request, I'd even offer you the services of my talk page if you'd want to talk about anything. Best of luck in all things. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 22:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, Ched! I will have nothing to do with Ryulong. My desired outcome has already been accomplished with him. --] (]) 22:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would like to inform you that someone has posted your personal information on a certain attack site. See the history of the page in question for evidence on who this might be ] (]) 22:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::What personal information, where? I looked at if that is the one in question. --] (]) 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Look in the history, the information has since been removed. ] (]) 22:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::haha, a user claiming to be Ryulong just edited the page. ] (]) 22:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thats funny. Thats not even my name, or my photo. There is another user who goes by DougsTech, they must have googled it and found that. --] (]) 22:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Check the bottom of the page, there is a website listed with LOTS of personal information. If it is yours, I will delete that information quickly. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">] • ] • 22:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| For future reference, the edits are at Special:Contributions/The_Real_Ryulong and Special:Contributions/PurpleHaze of the attack site in question. ] (]) 22:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't check the talk page of the first user.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 22:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Do you guys realize how silly it is tiptoeing around the words "Encyclopedia Dramatica"? Are you trying to empower them as much as possible to dictate how we behave here? It's a silly satire website ("attack site" indeed!); it's called "Encyclopedia Dramatica", and the sky won't fall if you say their name. You'd think it was the freakin' Mossad, the way people act... -]<sup>(])</sup> 23:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's a blacklisted URL. Try saving the page with the full URL.--] (]) 01:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I know that, (I know more about the history between WP and ED than anyone wants to know), but that's no excuse to talk about it as "the attack site" and avoid its name. That's just silly. -]<sup>(])</sup> 01:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Some advice === | |||
| It may be a good idea to allow the temperature to cool a while regarding your indef block, and there are those who are too pleased with themselves at the moment to realise that there are likely very shaky grounds for the sanction - it may be that with more sober assessment there will be some shift toward allowing a lifting of the indefinite block in exchange for some topic bans or withdrawal from commenting about specific people, undertakings of better civility etc. etc.<br> | |||
| As I see it you will need to sit out the original week block for your gloating over Ryulong's desysop - I do not see anyone outside of the anti Ryulong faction agreeing to lift that. Use that time to consider what you can offer to the community to return to editing - while heeding what other people have suggested, it would be a lot more effective if you were making the undertakings rather than just accepting what is there. Tell them what you intend to do in contributing usefully as well as what you won't do again (for a while or for ever, you pitch it as you judge fit). Make sure it is something that you feel you can work too - which is why you should detail what you will do, because you will need something to keep yourself away from the old trouble spots.<br> | |||
| When you think you have a package, post it on this page. If it doesn't get picked up on, email me and some other people who have been arguing against the indef block so it can be brought up at ANI. While being true to your like minded friends, it is likely that more, er, mellow opinions will be better used in promoting your case. If you are going to make commitments in an attempt to return to editing, it is best if you start acting upon them before and while you are making the request - it indicates you are serious in your undertakings.<br> | |||
| Lastly, ignore the ip. Don't get wound up. Don't say what you really think if that is only going to get you into more trouble. Don't get frustrated. Do relax. Do think about what you want to achieve on WP. Consider what you are prepared to give up or do differently. Think about what other stuff you can do on Misplaced Pages which will keep you away from old trouble spots. Do honestly consider whether you want to edit under those self imposed conditions. Do be prepared to be disappointed, but don't give up until you are certain you cannot do any more. | |||
| I hope that helps, and you can take the time to think about what has happened and how you may be able to move on. ] (]) 23:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ; Some more advice | |||
| * ] | |||
| The above was not written with you in mind; it is about the general case. | |||
| I note that ] is not ]; that would be a first step. | |||
| ] 07:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Jack, its kinda hard to do much of anything when you're indef blocked. --] (]) 03:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: See ] | |||
| :::: I was unblocked for this purpose while indef-blocked. To unify, you do need to be unblocked on your home-wiki, but the process entails no actual edits. In practice you would make a few edits here on your talk asking for the temp-unblock and then stating that you had performed the unification (i.e. block gets reinstated). The short version of the advice in the link I gave is: go do 10,000 usfeul edits elsewhere; then you seek to return here. ] 04:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::You wanna be unblocked? -]<sup>(])</sup> 03:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ofcourse, but it was denied. AN indef block for a user with 10,000+ edits and over a years experience who made <10 "personal attacks" according to some is unheard of. Especially when this user opposed administrators, this type of action can be seen as vengeful. --] (]) 03:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm an admin, I agree with a lot of what you do, and I'm offering to take your case. I understand why you might see the block that way. What do you say? Email me if you're interested, and we can talk brass tacks. -]<sup>(])</sup> 03:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Look, this has proven my point. Look what happened with Kmweber. They bullied him away. And now they are trying to bully you away by outing you on an attack site. ] (]) 15:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You make that site more powerful every time you talk about them is this manner. You must be their good friend. It's not called "an attack site"; it's got a name. Talking about it as if they're boogey-men empowers them. Keep it up. -]<sup>(])</sup> 18:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :DT, if you were around then, or if you choose to check into the history, you will see that the situation of Kmweber (Kurt) is not similar to yours. He customarily opposed self-noms at RfA, you tend to oppose most nominations whoever makes them. And neither he nor you were blocked because of RfA behaviour. I urge you to seriouly consider the advice above from LHvU; a firm commitment from you would, I am sure, influence a meaningful percentage of interested admins. --<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 15:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I also agree. I think Less's advice is sound. I think some time is needed for cooler heads all around, and then we can take it from there. ]]] 18:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Ok, ]. Anyways outing another user at ED or any other attack site for that matter is inexcusable and a ban for the guilty party is probably warranted here. And Doug, ] ] (]) 19:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not an attack site, and they have site policies against outing, which they refer to as "dox". If you request that personal material vanish, they'll vanish it. This is not a Harry Potter book; it's a website, and it's run by human beings. You do yourself a disservice to mythologize them. -]<sup>(])</sup> 23:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok, well look at the edits of the person. "don't forget, this faggot is still in high school", "The faggot got what he deserved, I hope he rots in banhell.". Against the policies of both sites? ] (]) 23:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I never said that personal insults are against any policy there; that's pretty much their bread and butter. I said "dox" are against that site's policies. Does "The faggot got what he deserved, I hope he rots in banhell" contain "dox" (= personally identifiable information)? No, unless "banhell" is a street address. Read what I wrote next time, rather than making something up. -]<sup>(])</sup> 01:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Emails == | |||
| I have been receiving many emails lately, and thought I should post a few. It seems that many users are afraid to agree with me (publicly) for fear that the admins will do them the same. I have withheld their usernames. --] (]) 17:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Doug, | |||
| I am so sorry you are blocked indefinitely. This is like a life sentence, longer than what bank robbers get and worse than what some vandals get. | |||
| I am glad that Ryulong is desysopped. He was so bad, it was obvious. The fact that it took so long shows WP is broken. | |||
| Please do not edit in my user page or even mention that I am writing to you. The fact that I am e-mailing you is dangerous enough as WP is full of kids with much time and they routinely violate privacy by snooping with IP's. | |||
| WP is not the rest of your life. Enjoy a good meal! Enjoy life! Misplaced Pages is just savage. It falsely claims to be an encyclopedia. It is just a goofy place to type and see your typing on the screen. | |||
| **** | |||
| P.S. I disagree that there are too many admins. There are too few good admins and too many bad ones. | |||
| :Hi Doug, hope your weekend is going well. I just wanted to mention that you should exercise great caution in posting email. Be aware of ] and all. I don't know if your theory of "fear of admins" is valid or not, it may be that someone wants to add a personal touch of encouragement and support to you personally. | |||
| :I noticed that you and GTB have engaged in what appears to be some positive interaction. I like that idea. I know that GBT has a solid background in working with things like this in both real life and on WP. I'm hoping that it may offer some insight into the idea that "admins are not all bad". I've never held a particular view of admins as a collective "group", and rather judge each on an individual basis. In fact, I've seen some admins who simply don't agree, and will debate profusely with one another. Perhaps it's not as apparent because they must be clued into what is acceptable in regards to policy and guidelines? I agree that if an administrator is mis-using the couple extra buttons, that they should be relieved of those things, at least until they've shown a clear understanding of the intension of those tools. I'm certainly not afraid to say that publicly, or even loudly. I guess that I've just been very fortunate in which admins. I've come into contact with. Even the ones that I've disagreed with, have offered insightful viewpoints, done so politely, we've talked, and then gone our own ways. Hopefully with a bit of respect, if not agreement. "Admin" isn't a bad thing in-and-of itself, in fact, it's a very necessary function here. They are all individuals, from all different cultures, backgrounds, and viewpoints. Anyway, I hope that GTB and you are able to proceed in positive directions, and I hope that perhaps he'll be able to show you by example the good side of administrator-ship. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that by this time next week, you'll be back to editing here, and all these dramatic matters will result in a growth and understanding that brings a positive influence to Misplaced Pages. My best to you as always. ;) — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 17:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''note''' Yes, I noticed that you didn't post any of their personal information - good judgment! ;) — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 18:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given the fact that you were allowed to express your unpopular opinion for months and were only blocked when you became abusive towards others, I would say that your supporter has nothing to fear in defending you as long as they do it in a way that is not abusive towards others. ] 18:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:55, 31 May 2009
DougsTech 
|
|
|
 |
|
|
| Home | Talk | Contribs | Edit Count | Sandbox |
| This is DougsTech's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| This is DougsTech's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Block Notice
I am currently blocked from editing. I opposed some admins, so they came at me with a ton of deletions and blocks. Don't ever make an admin mad, they will use their tools against policy to silence or get rid of you, just because they don't like you. Overall, I was successful in my goals. The 2 goals I set were - remove bad administrators, keep bad users from becoming administrators. At least 1 bad administrator was removed, and countless others kept from being promoted. --DougsTech (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
DougsTech (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I agree with the conditions listed here - .
Decline reason:
There is currently no solid consensus to release this block. Please wait until the discussion is concluded. Thanks for your patience. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.