Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 168

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 165

Archive 166

Archive 167

→

Request for adminship

Resolved

– Stifle (talk · contribs) gave the editor some friendly pointers.

i ask as a request to be given the ability of adminship and wikipedia articles will only be the ones that apply to the rules of what wikipedia is not. Thank you for your time. BF153 (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

....Someone should go have a quiet chat with this chap Fritzpoll (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Doing so now. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to see the reassuring "resolved" icon; I always knew there had to be an alternative to all this bureaucracy and drama. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see this encyclopedia's respective entries on heat and light. You appear to be generating considerably more of one than the other. Pedro : Chat 19:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:DougsTech

From the top of this users contributions:

20:25, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/OverlordQ 2 ‎ (→Oppose)
20:25, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ged UK ‎ (→Oppose)
20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3 ‎ (→Oppose)
20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Al Ameer son ‎ (→Oppose)
20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vivio Testarossa 2 ‎ (→Oppose)
20:24, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Someguy1221 ‎ (→Oppose)
20:22, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mentifisto ‎ (→Oppose)
20:21, March 18, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mentifisto ‎ (→Oppose)

All of the votes are the same comment:

Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk)

Should these votes be allowed? I personally think they should be indented, the user is clearly making a point. iMatthew // talk // 1:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, DougsTech seems to be basically a vandal fighter when he's here. Month here, month there - lot's of AIV and reporting User names. Not what I'd call a regular or big content contributor, but I don't see anything wrong either - everyone is entitled to their opinion and !vote. Perhaps he's just not aware of how many admins are not active, and sees a "total" rather than who's actually doing the mopping up. Either way, I don't see a reason to strike a vote, I'm sure whoever closes will take the "whole" picture in perspective. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 02:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Honesty only bothers me in a rationale if the honesty itself is a blatant display of bias ("I never vote for Australians"), because that's an open invitation for others to join in the bias. There are a lot of voters who nearly always support, and none who nearly always oppose, so I don't think it does any harm. Maybe DougsTech can be persuaded to tell us why he doesn't want more admins. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with your opinion here, Dan; it's a legitimate opinion to be holding, though it's a shame when worthy candidates suffer because of it. Also, thanks for notifying the subject of this discussion when the original poster didn't have the class. GlassCobra 05:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, glass try to assume good faith, just because the original poster didn't notify the subject of the discussion doesn't mean that the original poster "didn't have the class." He may have forgotten or didn't think about it, it only lacks class if you assume the worse in motives.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Spartacus is right, I completely forgot. But thanks for the bad faith accusations Cobra. iMatthew // talk // 10:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I respect DougsTech's opinion, of course, but this seems rather WP:POINTy. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a pointy and rather lame rationale to oppose someone. Prima facie, anyone? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking. It's very clear he hasn't even bothered to look at the candidate's qualifications, and for him to go on claiming that he's doing "what the community is looking for" is absolutely preposterous - if the community didn't want more admins, we'd have shut this down or you'd see a lot more opposes. With only one current RfA in the "danger zone" of less than 70%, I don't see how that's at all a justification for this sort of biased commenting. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

He's nothing but the next Kurt Weber. Look where that got Kurt. Let the 'crats decide, and stop giving him attention. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a legitimate reason to oppose. I don't agree with it, in fact I believe the opposite, but I'm not about to start indenting opinions I don't agree with just because I consider them wrong. Townlake (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Although there are many elements that help RfA function ... crats, attentive "regulars", well-wishers, coaches, etc. ... there are two groups that we absolutely can't do without, or RfA collapses in an instant: we have to have a steady supply of suitable candidates, and we have to have people who can oppose convincingly and not come off as dicks. About 75% of what makes RfA work doesn't happen at RfA ... it's the fact that people with dodgy pasts take one look at what happens at RfA and stay far, far away, and that will only continue to happen if there is solid, persuasive opposition on some kind of regular basis. But people rarely come off as brilliant opposition in their first opposes, so I really try to be friendly with new opposers rather than slapping them down. I think the history of RFA supports this approach; opposers tend to write better rationales with time, if given a chance. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What I've learnt in the past few years here is that these people rarely seem as consistent and patient as Kurt was with his prima facie opposing. I suspect this !vote, like many before it, will die out soon enough. Just don't feed him. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a legitimate, though inaccurate, reason to oppose. If Dougs believes we have too many admins (and he will not be alone in this) then the opportunity is for discussion as to why he believes this. In passing, I've generally felt that it's allways non-admins who seem to think we have too many administrators. Now this is, of course, interesting. It may be an element of self-preservation ("don't de-sysop me - we need more admins") or it may just be that admins look at the backlogs and struggle to agree that we have a surplus of people wielding the tools.... There is a difference, of course, between people with the tools and people using them but that's another thread. Pedro : Chat 08:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
That's a nonsense reason to oppose (not to mind being downright wrong) and I am sure the bureaucrats will give such !votes the appropriate weight. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly an assertion for which statistics that can be easily found contradict. However, we've agreed on the open nature of the forum at RFA, about the freedom of comment that accompanies it; so, so be it. As Stifle says, we have the 'crats for a reason and they're wise enough to give DougsTech's remarks the weighting they require. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If supports based on the opinion that there "aren't enough administrators" are counted, why should this not be counted? Not everyone will agree, but it's a legit position to take. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is every opinion that you disagree with IMatthew to be discounted in this way? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Point is an abusive of a process. Making the same vote based on a philosophical view cannot be a point. Perhaps it is SOAP, but only so if they have it on their profile too. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

~~We can all agree~~ I think the !vote is POINTy and not constructive. I don't think there's any need to indent it, though; the crats are (I hope) intelligent people and will be able to see that these comments don't count for much. (I just noticed Anonymous Dissident saying the same thing above, too.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't all agree with that. And for the love of headcheese, can people stop using "POINT" and linking to WP:POINT, when in fact no disruption is taking place. It's the most overused/wrongly used shortcut on Wikipedia. I have two-thirds a mind to go RfD that bitch. Smiles! Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, stricken and changed "all agree"...my fault for not having read the whole discussion before commenting. Anyway, I still think it's pointy (sorry, can't think of another way to put it)—he's not voting on whether so-and-so would make a good admin, but whether there should be admins at all...and specific people's RfAs aren't really the place to be voting on that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong. It may be that's he's trying to make or prove a point. However, there is a difference between "making a point" and "making a POINT" (as some people would say). --Ali'i 17:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And another non-POINT point: newbie opposers are the least likely people on Wikipedia to get love, and the people whose absence would make the whole thing collapse in rubble the fastest (assuming they hang around and get smarter and more dedicated to the process). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, he is not voting on "whether there should be admins at all". If you read what he actually said, you'll see that his position is that there are too many admins, something I happen to agree with. The opposite of "too many" is not "none". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, voting on "whether there should be more admins". Better? Now feel free to talk about the substance of something rather than looking for things to nitpick over. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think that clear thinking and an honest appraisal of your opponent's argument is "nitpicking", then I'm afraid that I have nothing more to say to you except that I find that attitude to be offensive. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. Please forgive me if I don't get too worked up over being called "offensive" by someone who has been blocked numerous times for incivility. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is less about the specifics of this vote (it's not a popular opinion, but it's far from completely delusional); and more about making blanket votes across all active RfAs pushing the same point - while it isn't quite the classic "WP:POINT", it is bordering on being disruptive to get attention for your view. An opinion like "We have too many administrators" the more specific thing that DougsTech seems to be getting at "We should remove old administrators before voting in new ones" is something that should be probably raised on a policy level (whether it's here, or at the village pump, or via an RFC) rather than by making specific votes on RfAs. For better or worse, an RfA kind of needs to be an assessment of an individual candidate's suitability, and I don't think it's very helpful to oppose based on a policy point that particular candidate simply cannot change. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was tring to say, only you've worded it better. !votes like this are votes for or against a policy, not for or against a candidate.

I remember during the Arbcom elections there was someone opposing every single candidate with a rationale like "Arbcom is a farce and needs to be gotten rid of." Does anyone remember if a consensus was reached about that person's voting? It might be relevant here as well. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the other non-RFA edits concern me, such as issuing a 4im vandalism warning for an edit that really doesn't look like much of vandalism, let alone the need for a 4im warning. MuZemike 19:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech got blocked 72 hours once in August 8, 2008 by User:Hersfold for "repeated abuse of scripts and circumvention of preventative action". I'm not sure what constitutes as "abuse of scripts" but issuing 4im looks like it's along the same line (except this one is abuse of templates). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The bureaucrats aren't stupid, and when Doug is the only user opposing a certain editor, or even if he isn't, they won't take his comments into consideration, considering all of its rebuttals. If you're still concerned, perhaps the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard is a better place to discuss it than here. Jd027^talk 20:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that only works on the assumption that the comments made by him are invalid. Commenting at RfA isn't like a private members bill; you don't need to get a certain number of "per" votes for your comment to be considered valid. Ironholds (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the bureaucrats weight comments appropriately, the key word being appropriately, and that even though he can oppose on any merry grounds he likes, in practice, his comments aren't going to make or break anyone's RfA. Jd027^talk 20:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. People that oppose my vote do not seem to really be opposing what I am saying, but rather how I am saying it. Remember, it is not your job to decide consensus (unless you are a bureaucrat.) --DougsTech (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, for the record, I oppose both the way you're carrying out your vote, and your reasoning behind it, but it's still your choice to make that vote. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Dougs I am "opposing" what you are saying, not the way you are saying it. Perhaps you can bring this conversation back on track by demonstrating exactly why there are "too many administrators". Evidence would give more weight to your comments. Pedro : Chat 22:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Too many admins. You as an admin should know how to find this. You should also read what I have typed above and in various places. DougsTech (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No Dougs. You should back up your comments with evidence not vague "look above" (I read above - there's nothing demonstrating your reasoning at all ) or "look in other places" remarks if you want people to take your comments seriously. I can only assume that as you can't be bothered to give the community the benefit of your wisdom as to why there are too many admins it's because you don't actually have any evidence. Pedro : Chat 22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Wow, Doug, that's helpful. "Why are there too many admins?" "Because there are too many." rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha, yeah. If pedro had bothered to do ANY research into the situation he would have seen the comments on my talk page. I will make it a LITTLE easier for him and post them here. And that will also be the last I will discuss of this. Bottom line is, some people don't like my votes or opinion...but is completely compliant with official policy. "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) 22:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And all the lesser courts suddenly disappear? Cheers. I'^mperator 22:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Supreme court justices compare, very very roughly to something like ArbCom, or maybe Jimbo. Not admins. Poor analogy. --Ged UK 22:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that this morning on your talk Dougs, but I dismissed it out of hand as not relevant. Nice assumption of good faith by the way. What on earth has a "supreme court justice" got to do with Wikipedia? Many editors invited you to expand on your rationale, yet instead have you have acted like a petulant child. Shame. A lot of editors have sympathy with your point of view, that there are too many admins - yet you've managed to undermine your own argument not support it. Pedro : Chat 22:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin who merely reviews the requests and rarely actually votes, I honestly don't care about DougsTech's votes, and I don't think others really should argue it there. The problem is the attempts to argue about that on the requests page, where it is clearly irrelevant there. DougsTech, could you try to force the issue outside of the requests page? I know it's not your responsibility to stop others from posting there but I think it would be more productive for everyone that way. Simply add "and go to my talk page (or this page or wherever) if people want to argue it" or something. I feel bad for the people requesting adminship when their RFA go off into tangents like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and is it really any less POINTy than someone who says "oppose because doesn't meet standards in my user space"? Those sometimes are equally impersonal (1 FA, 3 GAs, 3000 edits, etc.) and is that really checking qualfications? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't, but who is saying such opposes are acceptable? Majorly talk 23:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps all of these kinds of discussions could be brought to an end if it were possible to state categorically what the accepted standard for becoming an administrator actually is. Right now it seems to be little more than "I've made lots of friends, I haven't upset anyone, I've served my time at AfD, I've made sure that my last 1,000 edits were done manually, and it's three months since my last RfA." --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Dougs, the guys do at least have an argument (and it would be up to ArbCom, not any of us, whether it's a good argument) that if you oppose every single candidate and say "too many admins", that that's worth a ban from RFA. The argument would probably go: the CIVILITY policy says you'll get in trouble if you tell every RFA candidate "I hate you, and no I don't have to have a reason, I just hate you". Well, I don't know if denying someone a mop does actual harm, but it does more harm than calling them bad names, so if you'd get RFA-banned for one, why wouldn't you get RFA-banned for the other? I don't know if that would fly, but maybe you see now why people are a little uncomfortable with the idea that "there's nothing they can do about it" ... there actually might be, depending on how you explain yourself and whether it's consistent and how long it goes on. And guys ... RFA-newbies are just as confused by RFA as WP-newbies are confused by WP. Please don't bite; he's probably not here to destroy us all. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Malleus: What you're suggesting is pretty much impossible :) Majorly talk 23:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Impossible, maybe, Unworkable, likely, Controversial certainly. But I agree mostly with Malleus' comment - however this seems to be for another thread.... Pedro : Chat 23:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I realise that. It was just, y'know, a dream. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read the thread a couple of times and still can't see why DougsTech's !votes are a problem. People are welcome to oppose or support for whatever reason they like, provided they don't engage in personal attacks, introduce obvious falsehoods or similar. An !vote with limited rationale, or one that appears to be replicated across many RfA's without reference to the particular candidate, might' be given less weight by the closing bureaucrat compared to a specific and well-documented one. A broad-brush !vote with limited attached detail is also unlikely to sway many others, so will probably have little effect on the overall RfA outcome. But there's no reason why either of these reasons should stop someone making such a !vote. "Oppose, too many admins" is the same as "Support per nom" - its someone's opinion, they're entitled to it, it will be given appropriate weight in deciding the outcome. For what its worth I don't agree with DougsTech, but his posts are neither "point-y" nor unreasonable as a personal view. Euryalus (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And per Danks55's comment above, I'd argue "Oppose because I hate you" is a personal attack, while "oppose because the large number of current admins can lead to contradictory responses to situations" is a general point of view and not a criticism of any current admin. Euryalus (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No-one is really saying Dougs can't make these comments - he is more than entitled to - but if he wants them to have any actual effect he would do well to justify his statements with some research and proof. Until then he may as well state "Oppose - because the sky is not polkadot". This is the issue this thread (used to be) concerned with. Pedro : Chat 23:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And, as an aside, if Dougs' reasoning is indeed that "the large number of current admins can lead to contradictory responses to situations" (which does seem to be a very accurate summary by Euryalus), then I propose that we block all account registrations on the basis that with ever more editors we get more and more diverse and contradictory views. Pedro : Chat 23:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

One week ago today, I got on at around 15:00 UTC. There were twenty-two outstanding requests on WP:AIV, and all but three were blatantly obvious, needing almost no thought before implementing a block. It is not uncommon for six or seven of these likewise obvious reports to pile up, and CAT:CSD routinely reaches 150+ pages. Yes, we definitely have too many admins... </sarcasm> J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So they were easily dealt with, no big deal. Where were the other 1,500 or so administrators while you were toiling away? What's the advantage in having another one who isn't there either? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with J.Delanoy. The problems of occasional inconsistent decisions caused by two admins responding to the one issue, are less than the problems caused by not enough people to respond to outstanding tasks. There are many mechanisms for people to seek a second opinion on specific admin actions, especially if they are inconsistent with the commnon approach. By contrast the only mechanism to deal with too few admins to respond to vandals and nonsense pages, is more admins. But thats just my view, others are welcome to theirs. Euryalus (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A slightly off-topic response to Malleus Fatuorum - a totally amateur analysis of admin activity suggests almost everyone who becomes an admin is pretty active in the months immediately after their RfA, after which there is natural attrition. Some return solely to daily editing, others specialise in one particular admin role, many simply stop editing Wikipedia or reduce their involvement over time. This is exactly the same, and for exactly the same reasons, as other editors. Hardly anyone who was an editor in 2003 is here today as sprightly and busy as they were back then. So surely new admins are needed to replace those that move on, just as new editors are needed to keep the overall encyclopedia growing? Where were the 1500 other admins when J.Delanoy logged on the other day? Doing something else, like the millions of other people who have edited Wikipedia at some point in time but aren't logged in at this moment. Euryalus (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't have 1,500 admins; we have 400–800 active admins, depending on what you consider "active". –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

How many admin are needed for AIV? How many instead hang out at IRC or ANI instead of doing anything major? Adding more admin wont fix the problem. Culling the over population now and letting people know that if they don't use their tools in needed areas and instead waste away causing drama that they will be desysopped. Don't feed the already obese system. Starve it until it corrects itself. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you prepared to name the overpopulation? bibliomaniac 1 5 01:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We could start here. As jdelanoy stated, there is a need at AIV and yet you are busy making responses in a random forum. You were granted the tools because the community had a need and trusted you to use them properly. If you were doing so, as with most admin here, they wouldn't have time to be chit chatting. A backlog? Yet where do we find all of the free time to hold such discussions? Come on. If you want to claim there isn't a glut don't sit around like this. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, J. Delanoy was giving an example about the past. AIV only has two entries right now, there's not a backlog. And bibliomaniac is doing a lot more right now than just commenting on this thread. I think you're just trolling. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is no backlog now, then jdelanoy's point fails. If there is one, then my critique of the administrators here justifies that their responding shows that administrators are not doing their job. Either way, it only proves that we don't need more admin. It is nice to be right regardless of what is true or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is nice to watch you say such ridiculous things so I can wait for someone else to come call you out. I'm gonna go have ice cream. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Ottava, but not all admins must work at AIV and other backlogs every single minute of free time that they have on the wiki. Maybe they're just popping in, like Biblio might have been doing above. X clamation point 02:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never used IRC and haven't posted on AN/I for months, plus I regularly help out at AIV. So I'm glad I'll survive your obesity cull. I think you're confusing admins with paid employees - no one, not admins, not editors, not wikignomes is compelled to do anything here. People contribute however and as often as they feel like. Over time even the most prolific editor will slacken off, perhaps cease edting altogether. the same with admins, which is why new ones are routinely needed to replace the others. I also this thread has moved away from DougsTech's !votes and on to other topics, so I'll leave it here. Euryalus (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, if you don't want to do the job for free, resign. If you are spending your time not working in areas that are backlogged but instead hanging out at places like this, then you aren't using your admin authority. Once the glut leaves, then we can start bringing in new people. To do otherwise will only make it seem like having adminship without cleaning up backlogs is acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. It is acceptable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So, in summary your argument is that we need more administrators who don't do any administrative work. Doesn't that strike you as even a little bit illogical? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I never said anywhere in this thread whether I think we need more or less administrators. I would have thought such a good nitpicker as yourself would have noticed that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. Try to address the argument, not the editor. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait. who said we were arguing? I was just voting on some RfAs ;) --DougsTech (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

!voting. --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 05:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is no backlog now, then then Ottava's critique of the administrators here that administrators are not doing their job fails. If there is one, jdelanoy's point is vindicated. Either way, it only proves that we need more admins. Sorry, couldn't resist. Everyone, get back to work already. :) - Mailer Diablo 05:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, when Wikipedia starts paying admins a salary, then and only then can people complain about "not doing their job." This is, last time I checked, a volunteer project. Volunteer projects are dependent upon people volunteering their time, and people will do so where and how they want. Speaking of which, you are a content builder, what are you doing here and not working on an FAC? There are a lot more garbage articles out there that should be FA's than there are items on any backlog! Volunteers are needed in ALL facets of the community. And how ever, where ever somebody contributes is up to them. An admin who only uses his tools sporatically is still serving a purpose on a volunteer project.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me like saying "we shouldn't have more police officers because there's enough of them already." Wikipedia is a growing community, much like your average city, and as such, promotes "crime" in the form of vandalism, which may or may not escalate in the future. Also, there are some administrators too busy with their own life to patrol actively, thus limiting the effectiveness of having 1000+ administrators. As others have said before me, everyone is entitled to their own vote, but I think that the votes should be based on the user's ability, not on something the user has no choice in. All else I can say is, I hope that he doesn't want to become an administrator in the future, in case someone counts this against him.--Iner22 (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Is all this relevant to RFA?

This whole discussion makes me sick. The point of noting that Wikipedia editors and admins aren't paid isn't to suggest that people should suck it up or leave--it is the exact opposite. We rely on free labor, so we should build a community around the premise that what causes free labor to leave should be discouraged. Votes like the one above are reasonable...within limits. It's a perfectly reasonable point of view to say that there are too many admins on wikipedia. That could be debated by reasonable people. It is also reasonable to say that because there are too many admins, one more either isn't necessary or will be a net negative. That can be debated by reasonable people. It becomes unreasonable when it is applied indiscriminately to RfA after RfA--while I can be convinced that we shouldn't be promoting marginal candidates due to some alleged admin surplus, that isn't a reason to refuse to promote an excellent admin candidate. It is also isn't necessary to invoke a reason like that to refuse to promote a sub-marginal candidate. Application of that vote to every single RfA (not saying that dougstech is doing that yet, just posing some limit) sours the process and forces good people out. Prima facia opposes over recall pledges and cooldown blocks make the environment at RfA worse than it already is. We should strive to ignore those votes if possible, admonish those who persist in making them and if recalcitrance places us in extremis, we should be willing to escalate matters. Getting into a discussion over whether or nor there are enough administrators as a result of the vote is more than pointless--it is needlessly destructive. Protonk (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and let's throw in the forumshopping angle too, with a twist. People who have been around have seen lots of forum-shopping and know what it is, but maybe haven't made the connection to WT:RFA. At ArbCom, people talk about bad admin behavior all the time, and they do hold many of the arguments that many of you are making in high regard ... for instance, it does make a big difference whether an admin spends their time improving the project or whether the admin spends all day chatting and not getting things done. The problem with bringing this up at WT:RFA is that it's impossible to know (both in theory and in practice) who's going to turn out to be a super-productive admin and who's a month away from leaving. Since it's a problem we can't solve at RFA, it's forum-shopping to bring all that anxiety here and dump it on us ... take it somewhere where it will do some good, people. The "twist" is ... maybe people are onto something, after all. We talk a lot about recall, and recall roughly speaking has to mean one of two things: triggering a reconfirmation RfA, or triggering a trip to ArbCom. Kingturtle and some others feel strongly that reconfirmation RfAs won't work at all. So maybe people who are saying "admins ought to be more productive, and I think that has something to do with RFA" are right after all ... maybe in limited cases for limited times, we should be setting up criteria so that if the admin doesn't perform, it triggers a trip to ArbCom? Is that what people were thinking, and how would that work out? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Followup ... after getting feedback ... hot damn, I think we're converging on a solution. Back soon. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You know what makes me sick? The fact that a few meazly oppose !votes actually led to a big, long RfA talk discussion, when that time could have been better put to use for something more constructive - and dare I say, more interesting. ;) Master&Expert (Talk) 05:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is just a suggestion to allow candidates to make statements on the 4th day of an RFA that ArbCom will probably consider enforceable; I know there's a lot to read because people are going to argue about unintended consequences, and we have to have these arguments, but there's no need to keep up with the arguments because no one really has a crystal ball, and we'll find out on the 4th days of RFAs whether this is working or not. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There's really no point in sitting around here discussing this !vote that's not going to make or break anyone's RfA, but if it's really that much of a concern, here's an easy solution: someone go around to each RfA and post a support containing the comment "Not enough administrators." Jd027 (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say this: are you out of your minds? These votes should be removed and the user blocked for pointmaking! Post haste! To say we have too many admins is either a) a bad faith attack on administratorship or b) a concern that does not belong here. Why is this even under discusion?--Ipatrol (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the lack of administrators (or lack of a lack) is not something for talk:RfA? Where would you suggest we take it, then? Ironholds (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that the 'crat shouldn't take such a !vote into account if it is the deciding one. I don't know what Doug is up to, but I think it's violating WP:POINT. We're not trying to create an exclusive Patrician class. We could use all the help we can get from qualified candidates. This blanket rejection of all candidates and when asked for an explanation and getting this is nonconstructive. Perhaps Jd027's proposal to cancel out any of Doug's "too many administrators" opposes with "not enough administrators" supports would work, but then that may take away from a legitimate reasoned support vote (though a support vote doesn't need a reason as an oppose SHOULD have) Valley2city^‽ 02:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

When someone added a support to your RfA without a reason, you didn't object to it, did you? The policy does not state that anyone must give a reason to oppose. The policy also states that ANY user is free to express his opinion. I think people may be angry that I am opposing their friend's RfAs, and making a ton of noise about it. When actually, it is well within policy. DougsTech (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it is much more acceptable to have a support without reason than an oppose without reason. "it is generally regarded as poor form not to explain the rationale behind the opposition as it does not give an administrator nominee useful feedback" -WP:GRFA. You may be within your rights to oppose the way you do, but do you think anyone is currently taking your !vote seriously? There seems to be near unanimous opposition to what your doing as you can probably see from everyone's comments Valley2city^‽ 03:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

When you support, you assert that you agree with the nomination; as such, support is the default position. When you oppose, you are expected to provide a comprehensive and thorough rationale. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion reminds me of our old friend Kurt. There is no need to indent DougsTech's !vote. I trust the closing bureaucrat to take account of DougsTech's !vote appropriately. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

He does this for the drama. It is a loop-hole in the system, and he is exploiting it. I can see that Dougs is intelligent. He knows that no Crat will ever pay attention to his negative "vote" because of the carte blanche disapproval of anyone becoming an admin. Therefore a reasonable and prudent person could only surmise it is solely for his own amusement. However, it has now become a me against the world fight for him so the only solution (save him !voting negative on every RfA from now until Kingdom Come) is a policy change which will never happen. The whole situation is sickening. That's my opinion.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 05:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comments appear to be inconsistent hyperbole. If you're so confident that bureaucrats will ignore DougsTech vote then what harm is done? What makes it "sickening" in your eyes? That DougsTech doesn't agree with your point of view? That's not sickening, it's intolerant. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for not being clearer... I meant the fact that we have this loooonnnnng discussion over something trivial is sickening (despite that I am still feeding in to it). Just curious, though; what's inconsistent about my statement? And there doesn't seem to be any unrealistic and extravagant exaggeration to make my point as a hyperbole would suggest. And as far as the weight that the Crats will give to his negative-as-a-policy-statement !vote, it seems that my opinion and that of the community seems to be on point. My logic is fairly clear.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I note that a closing bureaucrat, Bibliomaniac15 has weighed in on the issue in closing an RFA yesterday. See: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Smith609.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC) -- Source diff from the RFA: [1]
"As a result I carefully examined the oppose and neutral !votes. Disturbingly, several users saw it fit to oppose because of the "lack of a need for the tools." This should not be so; an oppose of this sort is so vague as to offer no constructive criticism to the candidate, nor does it indicate a serious concern in the user's ability or conduct. Votes based on too many admins were immediately thrown out, of course."

- Good to see a bureaucrat using their brain and not their calculator. Majorly talk 03:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

- - I applaud, bibliomaniac for making that decision, meaningless !votes should be treated as such.--Giants27 ^T/C 03:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    - Of course he threw them out, did anyone here expect him to take them into account when making the decision? He is an admin himself, so of course he doesn't care for my vote. As I have said in the past, admins stick together. But that will not stop me from opposing them, we are all invited to express our opinion by the RfA.DougsTech (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
      - I thought your whole problem with there being too many admins is that they work at cross purposes, contradict each other and deliver inconsistent results. Now you're saying they just back each other up all the time. You can't have it both ways, Doug. Reyk _YO! 04:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
        He threw it out because it isn't a valid !vote. Surely if the rule is "admins promote other people, because they are all working in a little cabalesque club" they'd promote everyone when they could reasonably justify it. Your logic is faulty; "admins stick together" would be a fine theory, yes, but at the time Biblio made his decision the candidate wasn't an admin. It would be like saying "oh, well of course X is going to help Y become a member of the Alpine Club; they're both Alpine Club members you see, they always stick together". Ironholds (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
        (EC) DougsTech, I threw out your vote because it had nothing to do with the actual conduct or ability of the user. You have not managed to show why the users in question would be bad admins in the multiple RFAs I have closed in which you have blanket opposed. Quite frankly, that's disrespectful to the people who have submitted themselves for fair consideration by the community. I also disagree heavily with your oppose in that one, you have contradicted yourself as Reyk pointed out, and two, Category:Administrative backlog. From someone who does have the ability to judge your oppose and judge consensus, let me make it clear that your opinion will be discounted until you find a better, individualized reason to oppose. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
        If the vote is going to be discounted, can they just be removed? We need to be more firm about stopping nonsense seep into RFAs. We put up with it for too long with Kurt Weber. Let's nip it in the bud. Majorly talk 16:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The RfA record to date for DougsTech shows zero supports and all opposes (including the unparsed one in the link). -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

- What a negative individual. Majorly talk 14:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, if my votes are to be removed, then you need to find some "nonsense" support votes to remove. Each oppose has an explanation of the users opinion...most support do not. I don't mind if a bureaucrat does not agree with me, I don't expect him to. He is an admin, and he is adding another admin to be on his side. What about this, I will oppose using this explination "Oppose per too many administrators, this user could only add to the chaos that takes place by the admins. Remove some admins before new ones are added" That seems good enough, even though my current oppose is fine.DougsTech (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The part of your argument that I question is this: if admins are trying to be some sort of power-wielding cabal, wouldn't we want to actually have fewer of us? That way we could keep the power concentrated in a very tight-knit group. The fewer there were of us, the more power we could each individually wield; therefore, you could support by the same theory, that the power needs to be distributed into more hands for the sake of checks and balances. A "when everyone's an admin, nobody is" of sorts. Useight (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, your "argument" is totally nonsensical, and has no place whatsoever on RFA. Majorly talk 17:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Here you didn't provide an explanation at all. These admins get mad when someone opposes and give a reason that they don't agree with, but don't say anything to those who support with a nonsense or no reason at all. DougsTech (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Typically, supports without explanations are considered to be a shorthand of "Support. I agree with the nomination." I'm not a big fan of them either, but they're a lot better than opposes that don't include a reason. That's why I always include a candidate-specific explanation (if you'd like to look, they're all here), and everyone is suggesting you do the same. Useight (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised no-one's thought of WP:DNFT. --Philcha (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with WP:DNFT is that it assumes the troll can do no actual harm if you ignore him; unless all the crats who are closing RFAs sign on to the idea that DougsTech's vote doesn't count with the current rationale, Dougstech can sink your RFA. And even if the crats did sign on, DougTech could twiddle the rationale until they did buy it, without having any change of heart. I understand that this is a tough issue; maybe it will get simpler if we agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere ... if someone's rationale was always "Running for RFA is a sign of power-hunger, so I oppose", then a topic-ban from RFA would be appropriate, probably. So ... where do we draw the line, and which side of that line is DougsTech on? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We draw the line at someone giving a bullshit !vote with zero evidence to back it up other than "I just think so". Clearly, he's an opinion of one against at least a dozen dissenters above (and that's just who wandered into this argument). He's past the line; I don't know where Wikipedia RfA decided that "anything goes". This is a clearly inappropriate !vote by someone who is clearly ignorant about how Wikipedia actually works. Like Dan said, his argument can tank an RfA - I've seen as ridiculous shit happen many times before. Someone will misquote a candidate - or take something totally out of context - and call it "uncivil". Then ten other people who don't bother to research the candidate at all (kind of like DougTech) jump on that bandwagon, citing, "oppose per X. I don't like uncivil people." Enough. Enough. We need to remove the bullshit from Wikipedia before it irrevocably tips the project into the abyss of any other barely credible knowledge site. Will we let reason rule the day, or allow misguided and ignorant editors to cause the disruption that is clear here? Tan | 39 02:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally arbitrary break

What surprises me is all of the sound and fury generated by one editor's oppose vote based on a belief that there are too many administators. Surely everyone's entitled to their opinion, even those people you don't agree with? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

So, then Malleus, I can oppose because an editor is Black? Gay? Straight? Left Wing? American? Actually that's a good reason. People are entitled to their opinion but certain opinions are not acceptable. I have no doubt you will throw back some clever words at me, but, frankly I don't care mate. Some people ^[who?] think that God Hates America beacuse homosexuals fight in their armed forces (to pick an example). Some people ^[who?] think that child pronography is acceptable as nudity should not be something to be ashamed of.
Malleus, you really need to wise up, get of the idealism horse, and learn that the right to epxress an opinion is not actually as cast in stone as you think. Certain opinions are not welcome - whether the context be Wikipedia or real life. And the opinoin of Dougs Tech, grounded as it is in fantasy, hatred of authority or whatever (but not grounded in fact) comes under the blanket "not an acceptable opinion" rule for me.Pedro : Chat 20:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, so far as I'm concerned you're entitled to oppose on whatever grounds you like, and that includes sexual orientation, political tendencies, or nationality. I likely wouldn't agree with you if you did, but neither would I try to suppress your opinion, or your right to express it. You may call that idealism if you wish, but I call it respect for the views of others. Racist arguments, for instance, need to be dealt with openly, honestly, and rationally, not by suppression.

However, what's being discussed here is nothing like as significant as racism; it's just one editor's opinion that there are too many administrators, and to conflate that with child pornography really does take the biscuit. Anyway, who appointed you, Pedro, as the judge and jury of which opinions are acceptable and which aren't? You may think of me as a hopeless idealist, but I have to say that I now think of you as a rather unappealing fascist. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I admit that many sticks held together will not break as easily as a few on their own. But I still find your argument that "everyone's entitled to their opinion" laughable. I thought you knew Malleus that we are not, in fact, entitled to express an opinion here. Shame you're getting flamed here and at Wikipedia Review isn't it? Perhaps not calling people fascists would be a start? Perhaps stopping demoaning the "children at RFA" whilst acting like a petulant 5 year old would also help? Any how, as the sub header of this thread indicates, this really has nothing to do with RFA. Pedro : Chat 21:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What an extraordinary outburst. BTW, what does "demoaning" mean? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you've come down to typos as an argument - classy - didn't I see the same thing from you on WR when you were baiting Majorly over there recently? Pedro : Chat 21:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You've been close to meltdown for some time now Pedro, as others have noted. Time for you to take a break and regain some perspective? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ready when you are. Pedro : Chat 21:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

← I think it would be best if you removed my name from that list, because I am of the opinion that for the last six months or so you've been acting like a complete dick. I don't think you've realised that yet though, which is why I'd recommend a break. In any event I have no faith in the recall process, and not much more in you. Please feel free to have the last word; I've said all that I intend to say on the matter. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Is all of the above discussion really relevant to RfA? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Malleus, you have my last word. [2] Even if you think recall is bust, I don't. If I've been acting like a dick then best I take a break. Pedro : Chat 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of that? You can just ask for it back again whenever your temper improves. Deeply unimpressive. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For gods sake Malleus. Just step away for once. Synergy 22:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, thats one less. More admins should do the same. I wonder how long before he wants it back. Either way, I think he should go through a new RfA to get it back. This is definitely a step in the right direction. --DougsTech (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, one less person to delete articles that are pure personal attacks, causing hurt, taunting, classroom bullying etc. at 08:00 tomorrow. Good news all round I guess.....</sarcasm> Pedro : Chat 22:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you were actually doing those things, you wouldn't have time to be here arguing. DougsTech (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, lucky for you, but bad news for the recipients of attack pages I'm now free of admin rights, so I can spend my time here instead. And thanks for disregarding my 8000 uncontested deletions Dougs. Cheers for that. Pedro : Chat 23:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, why has no one done anything about this blatantly obvious troll? Which real editor starts off their wikilife playing on huggle? Majorly talk 22:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech, I suggest you rethink that comment. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It follows my opinion of their being too many admins. He seems obviously confrontational, and instead of using any valid policy, he is arguing over another editors opinion. Admins should remain neutral in discussions concerning admins. Instead they jump in and back each other up. Sadly, the only way to stop this kind of behavior is by limiting the number of admins on the system. --DougsTech (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you point to an example of Pedro being confrontational or "arguing over another editor's opinion"? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)To be fair, I could probably find loads :) Mallues is right that I've been on the edge for months now. I think the points here are 1) this is well off topic 2) Dougs' "too many admins" line is mantra that he has totally failed to back up with proof (despite multiple requests) Pedro : Chat 23:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Again I will copy and paste this to you, Pedro. Please read it and try to comprehend. This will be the THIRD time i have explained the reasoning behind my !votes. You can continue to say that I am voting without explanation, and you will still be totally wrong. "Ha, yeah. If pedro had bothered to do ANY research into the situation he would have seen the comments on my talk page. I will make it a LITTLE easier for him and post them here. And that will also be the last I will discuss of this. Bottom line is, some people don't like my votes or opinion...but is completely compliant with official policy. "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) 00:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As you've said yourself, this is the third time you've talked about your reason. Unfortunately for that, other users have already commented on the false analogy with the judges as well as the apparent contradiction between admins sticking up for each other and admins contradicting each other. Besides, the number of justices in the supreme court is rather arbitrary. Seven would work just fine, as well as eleven. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Seven would work just fine, as well as eleven." That is pure openion, we are all free to express it, as you just have. --DougsTech (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That argument has already been dismantled. If you want to make a comparison to the supreme court your best choice would be comparing arbcom to it. But how many state, federal district or appellate judges are there in the US for the population of 300 mil? Nableezy (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That argument is totally valid. We don't have many different levels like that. We only have one group of admins. --DougsTech (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Participating in this discussion. Wow this is getting old. People need to move on. I cant tell weather its good or bad that my few opposing votes have created such a huge discussion. Certainly hope more people oppose on the same grouns of the number of admins being too high. --DougsTech (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see Pedro being "argumentative" or "confrontational" in this thread: I mainly see him disagreeing with you. I should also note that while you continue to cast your oppose votes with your current rationale, discussions regarding said votes and rationale will continue both here and on your talk page; simply stating "this is getting old" and "People need to move on" won't end these discussions. Acalamari 23:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

So admins are not allowed to express opinions any more? That isn't how it works. Any admin is entitled to voice his view in situations like this one. If they were to become involved and then use their tools, that would be a different situation. Please stop twisting things to suit your opinion (or one of your opinions, anyway; I forget if you have managed to reconcile the hypocrisy in your statements here and the oppose votes that actually started things off). Ironholds (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of this conversation, first it starts with a terrific admin stepping down, then it ends with a (to avoid breaking WP:NPA, I'm making this a ENTER WORD HERE space), calling him "argumentative" and "confrontational", nice job DougsTech, everyone takes issure with your stupid !vote and you have to realize, hey maybe I should stop !voting that way and make individual votes, but I guess not.--Giants27 ^T/C 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

←Someone was just weighing in on this in an irc channel, and it occurred to me that DougsTech either has a good-faith position, which is possible, or else he's a very, very clever troll, because he's managed to position himself very, very close to the dividing line for what would constitute bannable behavior ... close enough that there's guaranteed to be a lot of shouting from both directions (I got an earful in irc). In either case, the solution is to argue intelligently about where to draw the topic-ban line in general, and then figure out which side of it Dougs is on. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

My $0.02. I think most of us agree that DougsTech's opposes are unfair. However, we've gotten to the point where we all sound like a bunch of broken records. This has been discussed for weeks, and I honestly don't see what good further discussion will do. User:Giggy/On Kurt and RfA applies, in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't "unfair" vs "fair". Who's to be the judge of that? It's simply about the supression of unpopular opinions. I'm somewhat sympathetic to DougTech's basic premise, but I think that he presents his case unhelpfully. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

- I am inclined to disagree. I mean, I don't think heaping abuse for the situation is warranted, but on the other hand, I think that there is correctly a level of presupposed premises involved in an RFA. One of them is that, by having RFA, we are saying we are open to more administrators. A vote that denies the premises of RFA is not one that I would expect a bureaucrat to take seriously. He's welcome to his opinion. But on the other hand, by positioning himself actively outside of the consensus view on the subject, he gives up a fair share of his claim to be contributing to the consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  - I don't think that argument stacks up. Companies have personnel departments. They wouldn't have them unless they wanted people to apply for jobs. Wikipedia has RfA. It wouldn't have it unless it wanted people to apply for adminship. You attribute too much intelligence to the self-serving machine. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  - I must disagree, as well. RfA is to determine if we can trust an individual candidate with the tools. Unrelated discussion, such as whether or not we need more sysops, is irrelevant in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

An honest question

An honest question if I may for DougsTech: Isn't it possible that administrators back each other up not because they are cabalistic, but because they trust each other to do the right thing? Or that they have actually balanced the rights and the wrongs of another person's [administrator's] actions and not found them wanting? There are obviously many things on Wikipedia that are not done with controversy, but when someone generally acts sensibly, they are !promoted to administratorship. Is it too much to trust that they will continue to act sensibly, even after promoting? Sure, feel free to treat them with distrust to ensure that they don't turn to evil-doing, but if, for all intents and purposes, they have not not evil-doing, then you should not say that they have.
When you say that you see 2 admins who behave differently with one user, why is it that you do not approach the one's actions whom you disapprove of? You think it worthless to say: "hey, was this really deserved?"? Do you actually follow through with the words that you've left here; the words that say you cannot find anything worthy of salvaging in people who, for-the-most-part, work to better the encyclopedia? I struggle to comprehend someone having such a willing disbelief in the human good... --Izno (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a few "incivilty" blocks would get your head thinking in the right way? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this has been brought up in the past. I was unaware of this until now. After reading User:Giggy/On Kurt and RfA and the related documents, consensus seems to be that all users are free to voice their opinion, and it is up to the bureaucrat to decide consensus. I have stated my position many times. I am through discussing it, this is a complete waste of time. I am going back to contributing to the community that I intended for, and suggest others do the same instead of arguing over my !vote. If you dont like my !vote, counter it with an opposing !vote and state your opinion. --DougsTech (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you thought I was seeking re-explanation or argumentation, then you were wrong. It is saddening to me, that is all, and was seeking further explanation (which is not the same as copy-pasting nor the same as explaining your position in another way). You are free of course to discontinue discussion, but that would only leave a bad taste in my mouth. /shrug --Izno (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that was sarcasm... but I could be wrong of course. --Izno (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

An idea for all... If you think DougsTech's opinion is unreasonable, why not ignore it? By constantly discussing it, you only guarantee that you're going to see more and more of it here on this talk page. This discussion really isn't proving productive at all. I think we really just need to leave it up to the bureaucrats how much weight this argument will get (since, for better or for worse, that's what we select them to do). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech admins aren't like judges. Admins are users who can ban block and protect. The more we have the faster work gets done. In case you didn't notice Supreme court judges cost a lot of money and there isn't a terrific shortage of them simply because only a tiny fraction of cases go that far. How does having more admins harm the project? It can only benefit it. BTW supressing someone's opinion makes you look bad, much better and fairer to discredit his opinion completely in public ;-). Anyway DougsTech please respond to this, I think we all want to know the answer.--Patton^t/c 20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. people try not to jump in and start calling his opinion dumb I'm trying to start a reasoned debate here ;-).--Patton^t/c 20:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Haven't we discussed this long enough? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

ALl of that discussion above was basically labelling him a troll and not attempting to readon with him...--Patton^t/c 19:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Something curious

I pointed this out already, but thought it worth bringing up again. What kind of editor starts off their wikilife playing on Huggle? DougsTech has started a massive 0 articles in his time here, and his most edited article, Ohio, has 10 edits from him. People, why the hell are we putting up with this obvious troll? At least Kurt didn't oppose every single RFA. Blanket opposing every RFA needs to be stopped, and soon. Majorly talk 01:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, often, new editors have no idea how the rules work and thus, don't know of the existence of tools like huggle. Often, through exploration, they come upon things like that. I am doubtful that he is his how account. Marlith (Talk) 03:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

He just gets worse and worse. Now he's opposing users for being here less than a year.--Patton^t/c 18:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

So? There's people who oppose for having less than 5000 edits. Is that not equally ridiculous? Where would you like to draw the line? Only at opposes that you personally agree with? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be preferable. Yes. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But, using that logic, that would also mean that every RfA would succeed, as different people could find something that they don't agree with on every opposition, rendering it useless. While there are some reasons to oppose that are ridiculous, these people sincerely believe that this is a problem that the nominee has to correct. Wikipedia is a community, and everyone's vote counts, unless there is a very good reason not to accept it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iner22 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want a support of a ban, just take this matter to AN/I, I doubt there will many objections. He doesn't contribute at all to articles, and it seems like a recreated troll only sent to disrupt RFA. I agree with Majorly, Kmwebber was a pest but he at least contributed to articles. I'll support a ban there. Secret ^account 19:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

He's not even trying to do anything about there being too many admins

He's been asked many times, here and on his talk page, why he thinks there are too many admins and how many does he think is sufficient, and every single time he has ignored the questioner, or else told them he is entitled to his opinion and there's nothign we can do about it. If he really thinks there are too many admins shouldn't he at least try to discuss it/get rid of a lot of them? At least kurt participated in discussions concerning AfD and genuinly tried to act constructively.--Patton^t/c 11:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"try to discuss it/get rid of a lot of them"? In what means exactly would he go about that? GARDEN 12:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ninjas. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Village pump discussion? Start a proposal to have a limited number of admins?--Patton^t/c 14:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that would be very fruitful.. GARDEN 14:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

He could at least try responding to questions people have instead of repeating (angrily) that he answered them before somewhere else, even though he did not. Just about the only question he has answered is why he thinks there are too many admins, and the only rationale he can come up with is a horrible analogy to the US Supreme Court. Tim meh ! 15:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Awfully ignorant and arrogant is how he's coming off at the moment. Unless he can explain himself more fully than a cryptic backlink then I see no choice but to prevent him disrupting RfA further. GARDEN 15:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Whereas chaining himself to the railings is proving to be highly effective. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, he is, in my opinion, being irritatingly stubborn. But if his sole goal is to create drama and disrupt procedure then he has very much succeeded. GARDEN 15:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This really is the crux of the matter. This person does not seem interested in engaging in debate on the subject but would instead rather engage in mindless repetition of an action he knows to be ineffective and disruptive. There is nothing stopping Doug from going to WP:VP or WT:RfA or any of a dozen other places and making cogent arguments to pursued people. Instead he posts to RfAs in a pattern that a 23 line bot script could mimic. This is simply attention getting. The idea that Doug is not being allowed to disagree is utter nonsense, he just should not be going to an RfA and trolling it. I don't use the word "trolling" lightly, but at this point I find it hard to believe Doug does not know his actions are disruptive, yet he chooses to act in a way that he knows will cause drama. That is the definition of trolling. There is absolutely nothing stopping Doug from promoting his idea without being disruptive. Chillum 15:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If we give him an Oscar do you think he'll stop? :) I agree 100% with you here. GARDEN 15:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm starting to agree. At first I simply thought he was doing some low-grade attention-seeking for his niche viewpoint. Then I started to wonder if he was being actively disruptive to get attention for his niche viewpoint. With the repeated evidence that he's not willing to take his proposal further than repeated boilerplate RfA votes, I'm thinking he's just being disruptive for the sake of it - trolling indeed. If you were to pick an opinion with near-100% opposition just to rile people up, there are few better choices than this one. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"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."

---That has already been posted 3 times in 3 different places. If you have LOOKED, you would have found it. Dont try to make it look like I am not explaining myself, when CLEARLY I AM. You need to learn to LOOK for answers before asking the same question. Now, before you ask another question, and complain to others that I am not answering your every inquiry, you need to make sure that the answer is not already there. --DougsTech (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC) And here is another that I found "I am also very tired of seeing admins disagree, and the project suffer. There are admins (Ryulong...and someone else..?...idk) who have been found to be abusing their power and CLEAR consensus was to de-sysop, yet nothing happened. The other admins (his friends?) always step in and defend when it is clear he is wrong. Admins who abuse their power just seem to go to their friends to back them up. Even when the community clearly disagrees with an admin action, the admins are always right there with each other. It's community vs. admins and admins ALWAYS win, because the can revert, delete, block and all that. You can't argue with an admin civilly, usually because he will use the tools to revert you or block you...and ofcourse if he doesn't, his friends will. I am really tired of arguing this, people who support don't give anywhere near this much feedback." --DougsTech (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if this has nothing to do with this part of the discussion or if this has been brought up before but has anyone looked at this, according to that he has opposed 22 RFAs, and 3 couldn't be found (most likely went neutral).--Giants27 ^T/C 21:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggest that we either completely ignore him, or else nom him for admin. Topic ban is not an answer.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring him won't be possible. There will still be editor's commenting and asking questions on every oppose !vote he makes. Why would a topic ban not be the answer? It would solve the troll and pointy templated oppose problem. Tim meh ! 21:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, we have enough admins because some admins are bad admins? I have yet to see an admin, and yes I know of Ryulong, who could not have a reasoned, civil and constructive discussion. An admin cannot pass RfA without having some degree of clue, even if they are a bit over confident in their own judgement. Also you haven't answered as to why you don't raise this as a discussion, either here or someplace else. Why don't you? It is ususally more effective than spammign RfA...--Patton^t/c 22:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A bold suggestion

~~Anyone who is not convinced they can change Dougtech's mind, stop talking. Anyone who is convinced, take it up with him on his talk page.~~ Also, no more edit warring over his votes, please? If you don't like them, argue against them or vote the other way. If you think they're invalid, leave a polite comment under his vote, and ask the Bureaucrat to carefully consider. Less drama, please. --Tznkai (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Everything I post to his talk page is removed. What do you suggest I do? Majorly talk 00:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm striking part of my statement as excessively snippy on my part. And my honest answer? Ask the closing bureaucrat to consider disregarding the vote as invalid, and walk away. If he's removing comments, he's apparently not wishing to listen to you. Although I seem to recall us having a process for this kind of thing, you may consider availing yourself of that.--Tznkai (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

When someone is unwilling to communicate then the option of going to his talk page is rendered moot. A RFC on this users conduct will likely be more productive. As for reverting his "vote" as trolling, I stand by that. I revert inappropriate behavior all the time, as any good Wikipedian should do. Chillum 00:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And if I find your comment here "inappropriate?" Be careful with that rationale, it causes a lot of trouble. Bottom line: its the bureaucrats call at the end of the day, and edit warring is always a bad idea.--Tznkai (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. You have no right to strike someone else's comments, no matter how foolish you may perceive them to be. The b'crats are a smart bunch, leave it in their hands. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that striking out another users comments is wrong, however, I do not think that this type of vote should be counted because it doesn't actually provide feedback into the Editor who is up for nomination. The whole idea of the discuss section is for other editors to come to an agreement on the positives and negatives of an RfA candidate, and to suggest ways a candidate can improve, if not successful (and even if they are). Comments such as "To many administrators" just bungles the system and doesn't help anyone. –Nathan ^Laing 12:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

View of a recent victim of DougTechs vote

I am astonished by the length and ferocity of this discussion on something I considered almost completely insignificant. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and can !vote in an RfA on any basis they choose, however ludicrous or illogical it seems to others. You can !vote against candidates who eat blue stilton if you like. Of course, if everyone does this you will get the admins you deserve. As a candidate I did not find DougTechs !vote troubling. I was much more troubled by lengthy, agenda laden questions which took much effort to answer. DougTechs asks no questions and requires no response, and is providing a service in preventing anyone passing with an arrogance building 100%. All admins should be reminded now and again that they are here to serve the community, not to rule it, and an early reminder is good, imo. Besides, DougTechs is right, there are too many admins. Sadly there are also too many vandals, trolls, POV pushers, spammers and hoaxers. No other site on the internet is so tolerant as Wikipedia that it requires a thousand admins to police it^{[citation needed]}. Maybe if the problems were brought under control, the number of admins could also.

Please, put this one to bed. SpinningSpark 19:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

a recent victim of DougTechs vote? Are you kidding? --Caspian blue 14:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That's like saying we have too many police because we have too many criminals. We clearly need the extra police if we have too many criminals. Also Wikipedia is the largest site on the internet, no other website has more than about 2,000 pages, we have over 10 million on our English language version alone. Comparing websites to cities we're much much bigger than Mexico city, which has a HUGE police department.--Patton^t/c 14:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think you need more police because there are more criminals than before, perhaps another view is in order. Rather than address the symptom, address the cause. If we need a thousand admins to police this place, why? If we come up with better ways to handle administrative type tasks, we won't need as many administrators. Every single one of you has this amazing thing in front of you that is very capable of doing amazing things with the right programming. Repetitive tasks performed by humans are a waste of human productivity. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right. To paraphrase Tony Blair, wikipedia needs to be tough on the causes of crime, by doing some of the obvious things that have been on the backburner for far too long, like rationalising its treatment of IP editors, flagged revisions, semi-protection of BLPs, and so on. Not just recruiting more and more policemen. Let's not forget either that policemen commit crimes just as criminals do, it's just that policemen are harder to catch and bring to justice. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has a better way of being an admin I would love to read that essay. I would gladly do the work of 5 admins if there was some instruction page on how to accomplish this task. Most admin tasks that can be automated already are, it is the need for human decision making that requires humans to go through the backlogs. Or did by programing an "amazing thing" did you mean my brain? Chillum 16:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would be an interesting discussion to analyze all types of admin functions, see how they are generated as being admin functions, and see what possible automated solutions might be available. I think that discussion is for another thread though --Hammersoft (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocking, protecting and deleting all require human judgement. We can't go out there and address the "causes of vandalism" (i.e. boredom and "to see what will happen") like we could the causes of crime. It's just not possible. The only way I could see us lowering our deletion rate is to put "WAIT: HAVE YOU READ..." at the top of the screen when creating new pages, aand list of our entire library of content policies and guidelines...--Patton^t/c 11:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many ways in which vandalism could be tackled. I listed a few of them elsewhere, including flagged revisions and semi-protection of BLPs, but having more administrators isn't one of them. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As an Irish American, I take my role as a cop here very seriously, while still recognizing that Paddy Wagon is a derogatory term aimed at my people. Abstract observations aside, two things would make this all a lot more easy to deal with. First, just block DougsTech for disruption. Second, bring flagged revisions online. Item #1 would just make this page a lot easier to follow. Item #2 would free up 75% of the admin corps to do other things... or would that be "free up 75% more time for 100% of the admin corps"? Math isn't really my thing. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech has not been disruptive though, so your suggested ban would be analogous to arresting the wrong suspect and falsifying the evidence to ensure a conviction. It is those who object to opinions they disagree with and who attempt to suppress the expression of those oinions who are being disruptive. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I move we block the people suggesting we block him. Who cares about blocking policy? Just use the block button as a bludgeoning device. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you dont mean "just keep using the block button as a bludgeoning device?" --Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So, if a person says something, and then gets attacked for saying it. The person who said something is the one to blame? The disruption is not from DT, but rather the people who have to carry on these innane conversations.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has to carry on these inane conversations. --Philcha (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There would be no inane conversation if he was blocked after making such an inane vote following the fourth time he was warned for being a troll... But I guess Hammersoft is right. We should all just suck our thumbs and let the lunatics run the asylum. Great strategy. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The lunatics are already running the asylum, I'd estimate about 900 too many of them. No sense in encouraging them in their absurdly punitive blocking policy. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I resent being labelled a lunatic, thank you very much. However I do believe the personal policies of some admins are very harsh indeed especially in such a situation. GARDEN 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that didn't quite come out the way that I meant it. I meant that there are about 900 lunatics already running the asylum, not that all admins are lunatics ... if you see what I mean. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm mad here. You're mad here. We're all mad here. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

@ Malleus, it's alright, I'm sure by "about 900" you meant 850 or so leaving me in the 50 left :)

@ OR, rawr. :D GARDEN 20:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It was just a back of the envelope calculation; there may well be even slightly more than 50 sane administrators. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you're still here suggests two things. One, you're views of the admin corps are completely wrong, or two, there are no active admins. Food for thought. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Three things actually; the third is that I have learned it is wise to keep my opinion of the hypocrisy, dishonesty, childishness, stupidity, and generally poor behaviour (I feel sure I've missed something out there, ah well ...) of other editors to myself. I have no doubt whatsoever that there is a whole posse of admins just waiting for me to slip up so that they can have their necktie party. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Thus, your persistence here is proof of your wrongheadedness on the topic. See my point? Hiberniantears (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

People who continously accuse the community of some vice are almost invariably guilty of that vice themselves. Just ignore Malleus Hiberniantears.--Patton^t/c 11:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make personal remarks. Your descent into insult and innuendo demonstrates very clearly that your argument is morally bankrupt. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I was mostly just impressed that wrongheadedness passed the spellchecker, so I ran with it. That said, the community needs to grow a pair and take out the trash. If people take offense at that, it isn't my problem, so much as your general fault for letting the problems fester for so long. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So I'm "wrongheaded", and the state of wikipedia is my "general fault" now? Please do youself a favour and stop right there, before you make yourself look even more foolish than you already have. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No. You're wrongheaded, and we as a community are generally responsible. Deal with it. My apologies if this section of the thread is offending sensibilities, but I honestly don't care about your feelings, or those of anyone who has helped further this nonsense. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not in the slightest offended by your opinion, as I value it significantly less than you value mine. I was simply trying to persuade you to stop with your nonsense, but carry on if it amuses you, or gives you a sense of power or something. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Malleus you called us a bunch of dishonest, childish, stupid hyporites. I said people who accuse the community of being such things are generally guilty of them themselves. You accused me of making a personal attack. You cannot accuse me of making such attacks wihtout admitting that you were making them yourself. What you said is clearly much worse. Stop labelling us stuff like that, we don't appreciate it.--92.251.137.246 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Patton, you might want to log in. As a side, I think neither of you are guilty of personal attacks (in this section anyway). GARDEN 18:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"Malleus you called us a bunch of dishonest, childish, stupid hyporites." I did no such thing. Try reading what I wrote again; all of the words this time. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, fair enough your comment "I have learned it is wise to keep my opinion of the hypocrisy, dishonesty, childishness, stupidity, and generally poor behaviour (I feel sure I've missed something out there, ah well ...) of other editors to myself" could be interpreted as implying that only some unspecified editors here are guilty of "hypocrisy, dishonesty, childishness, stupidity", and I'd concede that in two years here I have encountered at least one example of each of those four behaviours. But I have difficulty reading your comment "and generally poor behaviour (I feel sure I've missed something out there, ah well ...) of other editors" as anything other than a general attack on your fellow wikipedians. Whilst your comment "there may well be even slightly more than 50 sane administrators" even without the earlier references to 900 lunatics does read to me as a general slur on us admins, and "Please do youself [sic] a favour and stop right there, before you make yourself look even more foolish than you already have." as an attack on one particular fellow editor. Now that 24 hours dust has settled on those words, would you like to explain what else you meant by them? Alternatively if I have interpreted them in accordance with your intent, are there any of them that you would now like to retract? Ϣere SpielChequers 17:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Copied and pasted from Wikipedia:Disruptive editing

Refusal to "get the point"

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act like it is accepted when it is not.--Patton^t/c 14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean like the consensus to leave his votes as-is and move along with writing an encyclopedia, and people continuing to berate him over it are being disruptive? I see now. --Ali'i 15:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there ever was such a consensus. I saw a lack of consensus for a topic ban, but that is not the same thing as a consensus that the behavior is acceptable. I do see a general agreement that the edits are not appropriate. It would be a lot less of a problem without so many people enabling the trolling. Chillum 16:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if this user should be blocked on the grounds that there are too many editors currently, and that many of them disagree with one another. Does this seem reasonable to everyone? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. How does the above deal with eating babies again? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My distinction is that there shouldn't be any dispute in the first place. Doug doesn't smear anyone's supports by asking if there are too many admins, he simply puts his oppose. People should grow a thicker skin here; it's not a personal attack towards the nominee, least of all the nominee's supporters. It's not a point violation to speak your mind in such a manner. We can move along and forget about it... if he a troll as some say, then don't feed him. Done. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with David. This is not a vote, but a !vote. If Doug makes a good point, the crat will take it into consideration, if he does not make a good point, the crat will ignore him. The comment I have seen that Doug might massage his point until it is considered by the crat seems fearful of that, but if he does that, it just means he is becoming productive. Just move on. Let him make his point, and then let's move on. Man's got a right to his opinion. And I'm speaking as an admin who would presumably be taken out in the courtyard and shot, if Doug had his way, figuratively speaking of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)