Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KP Botany (talk | contribs) at 07:31, 3 May 2009 (→Proposed topic-ban: The DougsTech obsession seems to shows he's correct: there are too many administrators, especially the ones obsessed with DougsTech.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Home	Talk	Contribs	Edit Count	eMail	Sandbox

Accepting your nom

I accepted your nom, so I think my RfA is now live. Cheers. Thanks for your support. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

More discussion of your oppose

Hey DougsTech. I have a point I'd like to make about your too-many-admin opposes. Btw vrious people who might stumble across this don't butt in here and start hurling abuse.

Perhaps not that it would function better with fewer, but that it would function worse with more. I have witnessed one admin's hesitation to block a user because it was not a BLATANT violation of policy...and another admin would come along and block the user anyway. Simply put - admins are like "judges", they interpret the rules and policies. Too many judges, and there are likely to be situations where one admin assumes WP:AGF, and another admin assumes bad faith. The AGF admin would warn and not block, and the ABF admin would block. Put it this way - There are 9 supreme court justices for a US population of over 300,000,000. --DougsTech (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem of different admins judging things differently does not stem from having too many of them, but who we promote. Obviously if we promote admins with completely conflicting viewpoints they will make completely different descisions. That can be said of any position requiring judgement, including surpeme court judges.

If you think this is a big problem you might oppose admins who's common sense seems lacking, rather than oppose all admins in case one with bad judgement passes. The only sure way to get of current admins who you don't trust is to create some kind of de-admining process, though that has already been discussed widely and no agreement has ever been reached. If you think all admins should agree on everything you're wasting your time, because humans naturally have different opinions.

In fact I think lots of admins with strongly differring opinions is a good thing as they keep each other in check. Imagine if we had only had admins who would delete a badly written article about a place under G1?--Patton 22:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Admins don't normally undo each others actions without good reason, and I note there are no diffs to illustrate Dougstech's example. Just as there is an alternative interpretation that our nearest equivalent of the supreme court is Arbcom not the admins - admins are the equivalent of trashcollectors, cops, probation services, mediators and of course janitors. There is an alternative interpretation of the scenario Dougstech outlined; An admin faced by a backlog cut a corner. It shouldn't happen, I'm not convinced it does happen, but one of the risks of an admin shortage is that some of our dwindling number of admins will try to cut corners in order to keep up with backlogs. ϢereSpielChequers 17:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Child of Midnight's RfA

There are a few opposes on the RfA you nominated based on you. I would be presumptuous to expect that this might change your attitude concerning RfA, but I strongly suggest if you would like anyone else you would nominate to succeed, you would do well to change your voting policy.--Iner22 (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think anyone who votes for an RfA candidate based on their like or dislike of how the nominator votes at other RfAs should carefully consider whether the basis of their judgement is sound. My greatest concern during my RfA was that it would somehow cast a cloud over DougsTech. I don't know if blanket opposing with a standard reasoning that there are too many admins is helpful or not, but I have more respect for DougsTech's willingness to vote his opinions than for the mobs of disruptors who can't let it go and then blame him for the drama. There is not consensus that he isn't allowed to vote in this way. Personally, I was sorry my nom was closed early as I was interested in how DT, and others, would have commented. Some heavies felt that I and the process needed protecting, and clearly there was no chance of my passing, so I guess we'll never know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually never voted, I was away from a computer the whole time your RfA was up, but I have seen DougsTech around RfA for a while, and most consider his voting disruptive, and as such, will most likely be biased in any decision concerning him.--Iner22 (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Groucho Marx say something about not wanting to be part of any club that would have him? In my opinion, if people choose to be biased that's their loss. There's a case to be made that blanket opposing isn't fair to the candidates, but there's also a strong case that people should be allowed to vote as they see fit and that opposing beacuse of an opinion that there are too many admins is a perfectly valid and legitimate position. There are enough people who think allowing people to express their opinions as they see fit is worthwhile that he hasn't been stopped, but I can tell you it takes a thick skin and a sense of humor to put up with the constant attacks when people want you to go along with what everyone else is doing. Even when we don't agree with other people's methods, my understanding has always been that we're still required to assume good faith and treat them respectfully. I would think this would extend to anyone they chose to nominate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

i left this message to all admins

DougsTech, 8gigdisk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--8gigdisk (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

8gigdisk (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

8gigdisk (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

And I hope you have a great day!--8gigdisk (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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!

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Misplaced Pages
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Misplaced Pages Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

I have noticed that you have been going to various RfA's and opposing, claiming there are too many administrators. I have recently found three times where you have done this . Could you please elaborate this view further, as to why you believe there are too many administrators, and why it matters how many there are? —Mythdon t/c 22:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I too am very intrigued by this this isn't anything new can you please explain why you you are opposing every single rfa with the same reason like you always do also seen here in your voting history .It seem very unnecessary to me but i will let you explain why.

-- Staffwaterboy 04:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic-ban

This is a courtesy alert that I have proposed a topic-ban for you from voting or commenting in any further RfAs. This discussion can be found here. Tan | 39 19:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, even though your proposal has no actual policy behind it. --DougsTech (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes, there is policy behind it. Obvious trolls are usually blocked on site. The only difference is you are a tiny bit smarter than the average troll, though trolling is trolling. Landon1980 (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You can call it "trolling" all you want...strange how people see my opposes as "trolling" but never say anything to the people who do a lot of supporting. --DougsTech (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why you nominated someone for adminship? If you truly feel there are too many admins why on earth would you do that? Also, why are you not willing to discuss it? You don't even try doing anything about it. You know you are trolling. You know good and damn well your vote is thrown out on site, and that everyone just looks at it thinks to themselves "what an idiot." You are an attention craving troll, nothing more. Landon1980 (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look you will find plenty of explanations. People like you who flame before acting are the reason I get tired of keep on explaining it over and over and over. The nomination was requested by the user. I review all candidates and felt him suitable. I also do not oppose candidates that may be good admins. But, if there is a chance that the user might be a bad admin, I will oppose. Because once he is an admin, he is very difficult to be removed. Ryulong is long overdue for removal but that has never been done. We need to all work to keep people like that from becoming admins in the first place. --DougsTech (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note my comments in the general comments section, and feel free to respond to them there, here, or nowhere, as you wish. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have reviewed the candidate and find evidence which suggests they may be a bad admin why do you not cite the diff(s) that suggest this with a reasonable oppose that will be counted by the closing crat? You know your current voting style has absolutely no effect on the outcome of the RFA, so if you are telling the truth above why do you not write an oppose with the evidence you found? I also have one more quick question for you if you don't mind: What exactly did you find when reviewing COM that made you think he would be a suitable admin? Landon1980 (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

As I hint it my support of your "right" to make your stances, might you consider a different approach? How about instead suggesting we need to focus on desysopping any bad admins and preventing additional bad admins, but at the same time not assuming everyone won't make a good admin? I think you can make a better case for a need for community based desysopping if you think we have too many bad admins, rather than just too many admins in general. I don't agree with your current argument, but there's something anti-encyclopedic about outright banning opinions we disaagree with, no? Regards, --A Nobody 05:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed by the fact that some view a topic-ban of this editor as "banning opinions we disagree with." Doug's is trolling, the ban would do nothing but prevent him from trolling RFA. This isn't someone with an unpopular opinion, it's obvious trolling. The logic in the oppose section is so absurd I don't even know where to begin. I agree that editors can and should be able to express their opinion (regardless how absurd that opinion may be) all throughout the RFA process, but when it has became obvious their sole intent is to disrupt the process it is a different story. Landon1980 (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern is partially that if set some kind of precedent here, some could see it as incentive to indeed go after any unpopular opinion and if this one sentence oppose he makes is copy and paste trolling, then how do we know that copy and paste supports made across multiple RfAs are similarly not actually considering the individual merits of the candidates? Believe me, as my RfA comments show, I actually look up diffs and block logs, userpages, etc. of each individual candidate so I have something original to contribute. So, yeah, I don't like copy and paste "votes" and I don't believe we have "too many admins." But the amount of uproar over it seems disproportionate. This much displeasure should be over "oppose because we have too many admins of this gender" or something totally indefensible and that could besmirch our project. I think we're making a bigger deal out of something than should be made and again to Doug, I strongly urge you to reconsider the copy and paste stance. Myself and several others are defending you and probably receiving heat for ourselves in the process. Please, in good faith and appreciation for your defenders, seriously reconsider your approach. It is clear that it is not persuading those with whom you disagree. If you can't get the lid off the Lizard Lava by twisting it with your hands, use scissors to saw it off. If you can't reach your back and have no one around to put the Ben Gay on to ease your back pain, grab a spatula and use it to spread it on your back. Put simply, when one approach doesn't work, try something else. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 05:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You could have said nothing else that would have gotten so many editors to listen and pay attention to you, DougsTech. I agree with you, the way admins are consumed by your votes shows there are far too many of them, as there simply is not enough other work on en.wikipedia to keep them occupied, and they are in dire need of finding things to pay attention to. --KP Botany (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)