Home	Talk	Contribs	Edit Count	eMail	Sandbox

Hello, DT. I have posed a question for you on a current RfA.[1] I understand your position on too many administrators, but given the specialized nature of knowledge required to deal with intellectual property issues, I'd be interested in knowing if you think there are too many administrators now working in that area. (Not everyone-- in fact, very few-- are qualified to do so.) Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DougsTech for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Ipatrol (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you have been accused of making a personal attack by abusing the sockpuppet reporting system. You have submitted NO Evidence of any kind here. You are just doing this to attack me, aren't you? DougsTech (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DougsTech: do not scream at me, do not give me generic templates (I've been here long enough to know the policy), and do not dismiss legitimate complaints. In doing so you have in effect attacked me. I politely request you redact or soften your comments at once.--Ipatrol (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with DougsTech here, Ipatrol. There has been no evidence submitted, and no suspected sock puppet accounts have been mentioned at the SPI page. Until It Sleeps 03:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DougsTech, although you were probably wrongly accused, you absolutely should not put a "welcome to Wikipedia" template on a regular editor's talk page. That was uncalled for and inappropriate. Please try to stay cool and calm as well, and let an uninvolved editor determine whether the accusation was warranted or a personal attack. Timmeh! 14:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "suspected sockpuppeter" template capping DT's user page was also not helpful-- notice on this talk page should have been sufficient. I cannot see that a user page notice is suggested (perhaps it is-- I don't frequent this area), but in these circumstances it amounts to Wikipedia's version of a perp walk, even though probable cause for a charge agains the "perp" is absent. Kablammo (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this, how can you justify your opinion that there are too many administrators? How many is enough in your opinion? Why is having more than that number a bad thing? And please don't point me to the RFA talk thread, you do not explain your opinion there, just claim you're entitled to it.--Patton^t/c 18:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like you to answer. People would stop questioning your opinion if they understood it.--Patton^t/c 11:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions are being discussed at this AN posting. ThemFromSpace 02:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. People go tattle to the admins without letting the person know they are being discussed, glad to know that someone is making sure things are even. DougsTech (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, I disagree with your opinion [2], but the people coming after you for expressing it are the ones acting way, way out of line. Topic banning someone because you disagree with their opinion? Wow. I mean wow. --15:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't edit war. A quick reminder that 3RR is a hard limit and not an entitlement. Your change is obviously contested— raise consensus on the talk page before to make more reversions. — Coren ^(talk) 03:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped at exactly 3 reversions. Always careful to be within policy. --DougsTech (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you can still be blocked for edit warring, even if you did not technically violate the 3RR. Timmeh! 04:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but then shouldn't the other user involved in the "war" be given the same action? --DougsTech (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DougTech, please take a look at WP:BRD. You should stop at exactly 1 bold edit and then go to the Talk page to form consensus if your bold edit is reverted. Note also that there were two other users who disagreed with your bold action, so neither of them ran afoul of either WP:BRD or ran close to WP:3RR. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you have been (for now) been banned from RfX (RFA and RFB) based on this discussion. Thank you. You may not participate in or comment on such elections on any username (e.g., you are topic banned as a person, irregardless of what account you operate) until a new consensus is established. Feel free to appeal this community decision via an arbitration request. rootology (C)(T) 15:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]