Unresolved

 – converted to tag from section header --slakr^\ talk /

Discussion

Wikipedia is not an experimental model of open democracy and certainly is not an experiment in online libertarianism. I'm interpreting this huge discussion and the previous epic situations with Kurt to indicate a presumptive consensus here and favoring of a topic ban from RfX, which I've notified DougsTech of here. Now can we please get on with writing an encyclopedia? rootology (C)(T) 15:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• No way Rootology you cant possibly impose a topic ban with this lack of support after less then 24 hours. This is insane. There is no consensus and we should never act this urgently without a clear and present danger to the project. Whatt happened to allowing editors in all timezones to comment? Has DougsTech even commented on this yet?. I'm unarchiving and unresolving this. Please let discussion and consensus find its own way in its own time. Sheesh Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It has recently come to my attention that this user has been opposing every single RFA on the assumption there are "too many administrators currently". Engaging in discussion with this editor is useless as everything said is a personal attack. The point of RFA is to give an opinion on whether the candidate is suitable for adminship or not. Or even just about the candidate. DougsTech is abusing the process by doing neither of these, but posting a blanket statement on his misguided view of the situation (i.e. the false idea we have too many admins). Unlike with Kurt Weber, it is impossible to be supported by this user. Kurt, with all his faults, at least supported occasionally, and had a reason that I could, at a long stretch, agree with. But DougsTech's votes have nothing to do with the candidate. We need this to be nipped in the bud while it's still fresh. We need to stamp out nonsense when we see it. All the bureaucrats I have spoken to have said they ignore his vote, so there is no point in his continuing to edit RFA pages. All his votes do is draw attention to himself when an unsuspecting person unfamiliar questions it. Yes, people are allowed to give their opinions, but the opinions need to be relevant and about the discussion at hand, not about something else entirely. He is doing nothing positive on RFA, is being totally ignored in the result, so I think a topic ban to ensure that we don't feed him would be the best solution here.

Additionally, he is now edit warring on an RFA template trying to remove the word "only" which implies there are too few admins. This user needs some time away from RFAs. Majorly talk 01:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - enough is enough. His actions are the very definition of WP:POINT. //roux   02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as while I do not agree with the editor in question's stance, I see no reason not to allow him to express it. If it is his opinion, so be it. People can easily ignore those with whom they disagree. And even if it is a minority or dissenting opinion, there is value in having a variety of opinions expressed. We run into dangerous territory if we start censoring opinions and stifling discussions in RfAs or anywhere. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • He's allowed to express it, just not on RFAs, where he is ignored by bureaucrats, and where the opinion expressed is supposed to be about the candidate in question. Nothing is being censored here: just asking him to take it elsewhere. It does not belong on RFAs. Majorly talk 02:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I reckon bucreacrats probably ignore a good deal of comments in RfAs that are not convincing, but if we prevented people from voicing their opinions just because bureacrats ignore them, who knows how many editors' opinions we would not allow? Yes, his comment is not specific to the candidates, but hey, if that's what he feels, so be it. As with the other user you mnetion (I am not repeating his username as I believe he left under "right to vanish"), I think more hubub was caused by challenging his copy and paste opposes than by just ignoring it. I disagreed with him, too, but it just never really bothered me if that's how he feels. It really just seems like we'd be better off not making an issue of it than doing so. Let him say what he wants to say. If people disagree okay. If they want to engage with him in the Rfas, then who knows maybe they can get somewhere that convinces him to think about the candidates as individuals. And if we have a discussion, isn't that better than just a vote (i.e. a list of supports and opposes)? Now I would agree with you if he said to oppose "because all admins are (choose some insult)" that would be perceived as a personal attack or incivil, but if he just thinks we have too many admins and wants to do say as much, it's just a "whatever," move along. I am just concerned that if we start barring people from commenting when they aren't making a clear personal attack, we could establish a dangerous precendent that will invite challenges to other people's stances. And besides, what about those who say "Support, we don't have enough admins", which I have seen as well? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid "so be it" is the wrong attitude. We are clearly being trolled here, and it's sad people are too nice to see it. But we are. DougsTech adds nothing of any value to RFAs: his opinion is totally ignored by bureaucrats, who have publicly stated as such; his vote will always offend somebody; his vote has nothing to do with the candidacy, so is off topic and irrelevant; he has proven difficult to talk to, and argumentative, and has taken his "stance" further by edit warring on an RFA template trying to push his opinion. I'm all for discussing whether we have enough admins or not. Individual RFAs simply is not the right place to do that. Majorly talk 02:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
        • How are we sure we are being trolled? Shouldn't we WP:AGF? Now unless if (and I admit here I haven't looked), he has a history of other unconstructive edits, then why should we conclude that we are being trolled? I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt. It just seems that as far as potentially bad things to say or do at RfAs, his opposes are just not that serious. Now, if he was vote stacking, making personal attacks, etc. okay, but really just saying we have too many admins? And again, I disagree with that assertion, but it just doesn't seem like something to lose sleep over (and no, I am not suggesting anyone actually is losing sleep over it, but I suppose you get what I mean). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm pretty certain we are being trolled. It's nice of you to assume good faith, but it's difficult to assume good faith when someone is very deliberately disrupting the RFA process, and finding every loophole in the book to allow himself to do so. Perhaps my bullshit toleration level is lower than yours; that's fine. We have put up with this silliness for enough time though. Majorly talk 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't know...I just don't like the idea of not allowing someone to say what he wants to say in such instances. And hey, people know me as being a strong inclusionist and all and well, accordingly to Doug's userpage he's a deletionist, so one might think I would jump on this opportunity to silence someone of the opposite editing philosophy, but that just wouldn't be right. We need dissenting and diverse opinions to challenge each other even if we really don't like the opposing viewpoints. And as far as I can tell, he is otherwise an editor in good standing, no? Now, again, if it were clear that he was a sock of a banned editor or had a block log full of vandalism or harassment blocks or something, I could maybe see something here, but it just doesn't feel right to silence him here. Maybe if he is just ignored and his view doesn't influence others, he'll try a different track? I just really want to give people the benefit of the doubt as much as possible, I suppose. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
            • A nobody:

• Strongly Oppose He has a valid (but in my opinion incorrect) argument and we shouldn't silence dissent. I don't think the closing crats take his opinion to mean much, anyway. Perhaps if we'd ignore him he'll stop that. The behaviour that's most disruptive at the RfAs is all the bad faith responses and accusations that his opinion creates. ThemFromSpace 02:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No, the argument is about the situation, not the candidate. It doesn't belong on each RFA. It belongs on RFA talk. There is no point in an editor continuing to troll us (which he is doing) if his votes are even being totally ignored. Majorly talk 02:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't consider him a troll. As I said above, I think the response to his opinion has created more disruption than his opinion itself. If he believes that there really are too many admins than it makes sense for him to try to shut down the gates and prevent any more editors from becoming admins. Wikipedia works by consensus, and consensus isn't on his side yet. Perhaps there will be a day where we have too many admins and RfAs will need to be suspended but consensus says that day isn't yet. ThemFromSpace 02:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • You need to look at the start of the chain. 1. User makes controversial vote. 2. People respond to it. It's human nature. Most of us know not to respond to it, but there will always be someone who is unaware (as I clearly explained in my summary above), which means that for the best, it is suitable he is prevented from making any more "votes" (I hesitate to call them votes, because they are completely ignored, and have nothing to do with the discussion being voted on). His dissent does not belong on each and every RFA. If he thinks there are too many, he ought to make consensus on RFA talk. Until then, he should either start voting about the candidate at hand, or stop altogether, because this is blatant abuse of the process. It is very sad people are far too forgiving and easy-going, when we are clearly being trolled here. DougsTech's "opinion" adds nothing to RFAs, or consensus (as it's ignored), so has no place here. Shame you can't see that. Ah well. Majorly talk 02:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Your comment borders on being uncivil. Last time I checked we didn't ban people for stating their opinions in a discussion. It's the most unpopular opinions that need to be protected the most. If others will learn to accept his point of view maybe we can move forward with this frivolous discussion. One can vote to oppose a candidate who doesnt have, say, 6 months of experience. Or that person can write an essay on it and be ignored by the RfA consensus. The only fair way to let DougsTech participate is to let him have his say at RfA. Writing essays and postings on chat boards isn't a direct action, when participating in the actual RfA is. ThemFromSpace 02:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Your comment is bordering on being uncivil. Opinions have a time and place. RFA is already brutal enough as it is. DougsTech does not offer an opinion about the candidate. If he did, we would not be here. Until he offers an opinion about the candidate on an RFA, he has no right to be using RFA to troll us. He is disrupting the RFA process to make a point, that we have too many admins. RFA is not about opinions on just any old thing. He is offering an opinion on the general situtation, which is totally inappropriate. Once again: opinions about topics have a time and place. RFA is not the place to discuss whether there are enough admins or not. Until you, and he sees that, it will continue to be disrupted. Majorly talk 02:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
            • This topic isn't about me and since you've turned the argument at me by implying that I am somehow at fault for this, I'm now through with this conversation. I've made my point clear above. ThemFromSpace 02:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
              • I never said the topic was about you. You're merely supporting allowing a user to continue disrupting Wikipedia. So in effect you are at fault, in my opinion, though not at all directly. Thanks for dropping by, your opinion was highly appreciated. Majorly talk 02:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The user knows that his votes are being ignored by the closing crats, and he continues to do it anyway in the hopes of drawing a reaction. This is pretty much the definition of trolling. If he believes there are too many admins, there are other, more appropriate places to discuss this, such as WT:RFA. I think a lengthy topic ban (but one that will have an effect, on the order of magnitude of 3 months) would be a good deterrent to stop the disruption. Firestorm ^Talk 02:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I notified DougsTech of this discussion, which should have been done by now. ThemFromSpace 02:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Any gain that may have come from this users voting has been worn away by the mindless repetition. Far too often this user has disrupted people RfAs, not because he has an opinion on the person, but because he wants to make a point. He does not base this opinion on the candidate, yet that is the location he chooses to express it. Chillum 02:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - He made an alright argument at WT:RFA, and I figured if the crats were discounting it anyway then it wasn't the worst thing that could happen. I have, however, just seen his actions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate, which make me believe that this is indeed an attempt at disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Specific RfAs are not the place to voice believed issues with adminship or the number of admins - that should be discussed elsewhere. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 02:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support the Kurt battles went on long enough, and this is following the same pattern that followed. The choices to deal with this are (1). DougsTech stops his votes, (2). he is topic-banned, (3). everyone else is topic banned, or (4). everyone stops responding to him. 3 and 4 would be very, very hard to enforce: everyone can't be topic banned from RfA, and as the Kurt issue demonstrated, RfA non-regulars will keep responding to the opposes, and we'll keep going round in circles. With 1, DougsTech has been unwilling to stop his votes, so that unfortunately leaves us with 2. If his votes are ignored by all the bureaucrats, then I see no point in renewing drama. Finally, as Neurolysis points out, the edit warring on the RfA template is not acceptable, and is what convinced me to support this. Acalamari 02:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support- I believe DougsTech's "opposebot"-like behaviour is unhelpful and inapplicable to individual candidates. It is grossly unfair to a candidate to be opposed on grounds that have nothing whatsoever to do with their work, demeanour or suitability for the job and in my opinion the bureaucrats are right to ignore DougsTech's !vote. Having said that, I was going to oppose this topic ban motion- usually I would argue that even the most unpopular and unhelpful opinions should be tolerated even if they're later rejected. However, I now find myself convinced by Firestorm's argument that DougsTech's behaviour amounts to trolling- DT knows his votes are being ignored but persists with them because of the annoyance and drama they cause. That is trolling. Reyk _YO! 02:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support We made the mistake of tolerating this nonsense with Kurt for way too long. Non RfA regulars who try to get the bit in good faith, but who don't know about the loony bin RfA groupies, shouldn't have to put up with this kind of absurdity. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support - His point has been made, and it's pissed off a countless amount of users. While it's not that big of a deal, most candidates would of course like to see their RfA go un-opposed. While it's not common, it's most certainly not fair if that's ruined for a user over an oppose that doesn't even concern them directly. That aside, his behavior is just unacceptable.  iMatthew :  Chat  02:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Reyk. He knows its being ignored by the bureaucrats and that it annoys people, yet he persists on doing it. Its not WP:POINT because its not actually proving anything, its just disruption. Mr.Z-man 02:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support It is painfully obvious that he is violating WP:POINT by making his copy/pasted oppose comment in just about every RFA. This is apparent trolling. These comments are just causing unnecessary turmoil at WP:RFA and are placed in the completely wrong area if DougsTech wants to put out and prove his assertion. Lastly, the comments have nothing to do with the abilities, temperament, edits, or experience of any of the RFA candidates or how they would handle the tools. There is every reason to ban DougsTech from RFA, not even mentioning the ongoing edit warring mentioned by Majorly. Timmeh! 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - He has every right to express his opinion (as much as I disagree with it). However, individual RfA discussions are not the place to do so, and at the moment he is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• To clarify, NuclearWarfare sums it up nicely. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I disagree with Dougstech but I can't see how his comments do any particular harm. I imagine they are ignored or barely regarded by closing bureaucrats, who are assessing the actual discussion points made rather than the number of !votes either way. I don't see them as particularly offending RfA candidates either - they're generic so its nothing personal, and the real tension of an RfA is people trawling through your contribution history in search of mild misdemeanours or limited work in some admin-related area. If the RfA is not close the final tally is meaningless and so is Dougstech's view, if it is close then the bureaucrats will give Dougstech's views the appropriate minimal weight. I agree with those who argue he is trying to make a fairly needless point, but the actual disruption is inconsequential, perhaps compared with the potential drama of a topic ban. Euryalus (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose If you think there's too many admins, then you have a valid reason to oppose nominations. What else are you supposed to do to prevent more admins coming into existence? On RfA talk you'll just get ignored; at least on the RfAs, your vote counts. I don't think its right either to topic ban him or to ignore his vote. Obviously if he were smarter he'd just find an excuse, but we can't seek to oppress honesty when it's there (if it's there). I don't think it sends a right message either, that admins (who dominate RfAs) are seeking to oppress users who think there's too many admins (that's obviously not how it is, but rather how it'll be presented). There is the argument of course that he is just abusing the process to get attention, but I don't accept the weight of this as this user isn't charismatic enough to make it effective. In fact, just the opposite is happening, as can be seen in this thread. Undoubtedly if he continues more people will swarm around him reverting his contributions, driving him to blocks, and so on. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Just a quick response. DougsTech would not be ignored on RfA talk; apparently, you haven't seen the discussion there in which he participated. Also, a vote such as DougsTech's would always be ignored by bureaucrats, so it would not count. He is disrupting the RFA process to make a point, and he is not commenting on the actual candidate in question but repeating the same statement about his belief that there are too many admins. That's the reason his vote is not being taken into account. Every individual RfA is not the place to voice an opinion on administrators in general; RFA talk is the appropriate place, whether his comment would be ignored or not (it wouldn't and hasn't). Timmeh! 04:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Well, I did say the crats shouldn't ignore his votes. Nothing is going to come of any RfA talk page movement by him, and community consensus is against his view. So, for all practical purposes, it'll be ignored and will count for nothing in all forums but RfA voting. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - It is painfully obvious that he is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, and from prior experience with Kurt, we let this type of behavior stay around individual RfAs for way too long. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Big support. It is one of those "clear examples" of being pointy OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This is baseless nonsense and a perfect example of WP:POINT. We got Kurt topic banned from RfA and DougTech's opposes have an even worse criteria: "I'm going to oppose everyone". Why he shouldn't be topic banned as well is beyond me. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. While such opposes are not helpful, they are also harmless. So I do not see any reason for a topic ban. Ruslik (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Quite why WP:SOAP is thrown out of the window with RfA is beyond me. It's disruptive, annoying and influences nobody. Individual RfAs are supposed to be comments on individual editors, not on the process. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support, enough is enough, these opposes are ridiculous and damaging to some candidates. The fact that they are ignored by crats gives me more mind to ban them entirely rather than ignore them; one thing I notice is that if you ignore something, it will only grow.  GARDEN  10:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The burden should be on him to give better arguments, not on everyone else to ignore his canned, impersonal opposes. Since he shows no sign of improving, we should not continue to allow him to invite off-topic commentary in each individual RfA, as Majorly notes in the proposal and Timmeh restates below in his response to DGG. Since newer RfA participants may not know the pattern, repeating an invalid rationale over and over is potentially disruptive, and I think there is harm in continuing to provide the opportunity for that. — TKD::{talk} 11:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Ban His argument is not specific to each candidate, which is the point of RFA's. Until he gains consensus in talk pages, RFC's, etc. that we do, in fact, have too many admins and RFA should be suspended, his blanket voting is disruptive. The fact that he responds with incivility, personal attacks and ignoring questions when someone asks what he dislikes about particular candidates he has opposed shows he is at best disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and at worst trolling. The Seeker 4 Talk 11:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Why we tolerate trolls for so long is beyond me, lets not tolerate this one for any longer. ~ Ameliorate! 11:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - pointiness aside, it's a drama magnet. Not worth our time, but here we are. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support: This user is going way too far pushing this point. Although the RFA comments are probably harmless and will be considered plain ridiculous by the closing 'crat, the edit warring shows that he's going even further than that. He can say there are enough admins as much as he wants, and he can try to convince others through discussion. But trying to force or fool others into believing his view through behaviour like this, however far fetched and ridiculous, is completely unacceptable. Chamal ^talk 11:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support — This has been going on for a while and needs to be dealt with; roux and Reyk nailed it: POINT, and bad faith; +WP:DISRUPT. I agree with most of the "supports" G'day, Jack Merridew 12:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per my support of the alternative proposal. hmwithτ 12:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Are you Joking??? or oppose I guess. What's this?? Votes for banning all over again??? This must be the most stupid proposal that I have seen in ages. Fringe votes like this don't have any material outcome on RFAs and I seem to recall that we have been here before with Kurt Weber. Suppressing fringe views in internal discussions is simply the first stage in imposing group think on our deliberations. Ridiculous. Shame on everyone supporting this nonsense. Just ignore them and explain to RFA candidates that the 'crats ignore the vote anyway. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Discussion has been attempted, if you take a look at his talk page and archives. He seems to have a wrong image of the administrator system, and is apparently not ready to listen to anything against his beliefs. Instead of mocking the proposal and its supporters, it would be helpful if you explained your view on this better. Chamal ^talk 13:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  So what if you tried reasoning with them. It doesn't matter. Just ignore them and they will go away or at least its less disruptive then trying to ban them. Their contribution makes absolutely ZERO impact on promotions and banning someone from contributing simply because you don't like the opinion they are expressing represents pure groupthink. I'd agree wholeheartedly with a ban if they were the ones pushing the issue but the drama all seems to be down to people who don't like the opinion. Well, they are the ones disrupting the project not him. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Whilst I suppose one !vote isn't really relevant, it throws out the RFA percentage stats which quite often people look at. This sounds a bit WP:SLIPPERYSLOPE, but if we let DT carry on with this, there's nothing to stop even more disruptive non-votes clogging up the system. This should've been dealt with when it was Kurt doing it - let's not pass up a second chance to sort it out. (And that goes for anyone who starts doing it on the support side as well). If this was someone spamming AfDs they would have been blocked by now - we don't need to do that, but we do need a topic ban. Black Kite 13:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: new consensuses are developed via just this sort of process.
  1. Claims that "well, the bureaucrats ignore this anyway, so it's safe to suppress" without evidence to that effect (and as far as I know, the 'crats tend not to discuss this sort of thing) are thinly-veiled statements of "I don't like this, shut him up."
  2. Claims that the discussion be redirected to talk space smack of "I don't like it, but the 'crats might be paying attention, shut him up."
  3. Claims that WP:POINT applies are unfounded. Is he making a point? Yes. Is there disruption? No. Dougs is non-confrontational in his approach.

  Ultimately, either we have an opinion being ignored by the 'crats, in which case it is no great trial to expect all RFA participants to be mature enough to tolerate its presence, or we have an opinion, properly presented, being considered. Unless someone can prove the former, this ban proposal (or others like it, as below) has no place. — Lomn 13:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  "Votes based on too many admins were immediately thrown out, of course.".  GARDEN  14:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  In that event, I withdraw the bulk of my objections. I still note that expecting all RFA participants to behave around controversial comments isn't a high hurdle. — Lomn 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support per above. At some point, AGF stops becoming what we have to listen to, and common sense becomes it instead. DougsTech is free to express his opinion on WT:RFA. "RfA/X User" is meant to be a discussion, not a vote, and if DougsTech is unwilling to agree with this, there is no point in continuing to allow this. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I've been putting up with this for a while, and it's gone on for too long. Xclamation point 14:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support per NW. DougsTech is by far not the only mass-opposer I've heard of, but his reasoning seems to be aimed at the wrong venue. RfA is meant to judge the user's fitness to be an admin, not the encyclopedia's need for admins. This is clearly WP:POINT-y behavior. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This is why we have crats. Let him give his opinion and let the crat weigh it.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Kind of weakishly reluctanltishly support It's a fantastically stupid opinion and since it's systematic we could almost assign a bot to adding it when an RfA goes live. But there's also a longstanding (though misguided) tradition to let anyone say whatever the heck they want on RfAs. The problem is that since RfAs are thankfully not the sole territory of RfA regulars, every occurrence of "too many administrators currently" either creates a long list of "what???" replies or forces someone to add "don't worry, there's a long thread on WT:RFA about this and crats will disregard the opinion". Since nobody really takes his opinion seriously, it's a useless distraction in a process which clearly could do without distractions. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose too many threads at AN. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Second Choice (stolen from ArbCom :P). I don't think it is a good option above, but... Anyway, I have seen enough stray comments from Doug to suggest that he either has or will operate another account if there were any blocks or the rest on him, so I have no confidence that such a topic ban would do anything but possibly drive him to continuing it on another name in a more subtle manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support User is clearly not evaluating individual candidates, this trolling has gone on too long. ϢereSpielChequers 15:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Everyone is allowed a !vote and I see no reason to strike a !vote just because you don't like it. Striking oppose !votes is a dangerous trend because it discourages others from opposing and should be done very carefully. How about a swing by some of the articles needing attention instead? --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Just ignore him for pete's sake. It's a protest vote. We get it. The 'crats get it. If he feels like stuffing that onto every RfA, then it's his time to waste, just pass along to the next one and carry on with life. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Ignore him per Tony Fox. This whole discussion is just feeding a troll.--Aervanath (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral — Although the bureaucrats can not-vote a not-vote (?), if the same thing happened with AfD, where someone added to every AfD, "*Delete – too many articles already," people would go batty and be ready for a lynchin'. It all goes back to don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. One user is ignorable, but if it grows to levels where 10 people are always adding stuff like "too many admins" or "self-noms are prima facie evidence of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand," then it's a bit silly, and I have a strange feeling everyone else will agree if it ever got to that point. That said, one person trolling by stating something clearly incorrect—that we have too many admins, as opposed to not enough—would likely favor the candidate, so in reality, that kind of an oppose vote is really more of a support. :P --slakr^\ talk / 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Support While I defended Kurt's right to !vote as he deemed fit, I have to oppose these pointy !votes of DougsTech. The big difference is that Kurt's !votes were about the candidate and some perceived imperfection with the candidate themself. Kurt was able to defend his position on why he felt that a specific candidate wasn't qualified based upon his sense of what he was looking for. Doug's !vote has nothing to do with the candidate, but a belief that we don't need more admins. If Doug wishes to rally about how there are too many admins, he can do so, just not on individual RfA/RfB's where he is being disruptive/pointy.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: he is now making his posts in the Neutral section... I don't mind that.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support per the above voters, especially Black Kite. I personally believe from secondhand observations that most Wikipedia administrators are overburdened and that we could solve the problem by appointing a lot more of them, and the declining rate of new admin promotion worries me. But I would not vote for someone whom I feel would become a problematic administrator simply to increase the number of administators, and each time I vote in an RfA I give the specific reasons why I would like to see each candidate be promoted or denied so that the other voters and the bureaucrats may find value in my vote. (Note though that I am somewhat new to RfA, having made only six votes, and have not yet voted Oppose, as all of the candidates whom I really wouldn't trust have been snowed out fairly early on. But the rationale I give above is a principle I hold myself to.) Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Your support for this topic ban has virtually no relation to DougsTech. As such, it is every bit as valid as DougsTech's opposes on RfAs. Could you please provide a reason why DougsTech should be banned from RfA? If it is because he is opposing because he thinks there are too many admins, then would you support banning anyone from RfA who thinks there are too many admins? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I thought I had explained myself better. I'm highlighting the difference between someone who believes there are too many administrators and votes Oppose based on the merits of each individual candidate, versus someone who believes there are too many administrators and votes Oppose based on that rationale alone, ignoring the respective pros and cons of each candidate. I would not support the banning of anyone in the former category, but would support banning anyone in the latter category. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, just as I opposed restrictions on Kurt Weber regarding his votes. My arguments are the same as of others opposing this above, which means under normal circumstances I would not take the time to comment duplicatively here, but since there has been such unseemly haste to mark this resolved and a topic ban implemented, it seems important to register disagreement. Martinp (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This is completely different from Kurt Weber's input, which was based on the candidate. Given that the closing 'crats routinely ignore these "votes", the best case outcome is that this editor's contributions to RfA are utterly useless. The only other likely outcome is disruption and distraction from discussing the candidate at hand - recall that the purpose of an RfA is to determine whether or not the community trusts the candidate not to abuse the tools. Now, if DougsTech has a sincere belief that there are too many admins, he should pick an appropriate forum (e.g. WT:RFA or the Village Pump) and start trying to convince people of his position with arguments, logic, statistics... something. Nobody is being silenced - if anything, such a discussion is to be welcomed. Perhaps the process of gaining - or losing - the bit will be improved as a result. But individual candidates' RfA pages are not the place for that discussion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban editors who disrupt this project and doesn't contribute much to the building of the encyclopedia should be banned. Secret ^account 19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from individual RfAs and RfBs (but not from WT:RFA). I think the opposition makes many good points, but where they fail is that they're not reading what the supporters are actually writing. No one thinks that anyone should be muzzled for being disagreeable, but a topic ban is the traditional and acceptable way to deal with persistent, dogged FORUMSHOPping. Dougstech is welcome to argue his case for getting rid of all the admins and replacing us with something else (he hasn't said what, yet), perhaps at WP:VPP, but that's the only argument he's indicated he's interested in, so far, and that has nothing to do with individual RFAs. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Ban from WP:RFA, WP:RFB, and WT:RFA, as well as from making RFA/B related comments on a canidate's talk page. The ban should be indefinite until re-discussed.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Is this a joke? I didn't realize having an unpopular, or even unfounded, opinion was grounds for a banning. And the peoeple who think this is a violation of WP:POINT are missing the point that one of the criteria of WP:POINT is that the action is disruptive. Voting in a vote (let's face it, it's a vote) is not disruptive even if it's based on a factually suspect opinion that nobody agrees with. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is disruptive. It's confusing to new candidates at RfA, and it's confusing to editors who are new to RfAs. And it's disruptive to editors with experience at RfA in the same way that spam emails are disruptive - yes, it can be ignored, but that still takes a bit of time and mental exertion, just like spam emails. And it is spam - no bureaucrat should give such an opinion any weight whatsoever, since the "oppose" has nothing to do with the quality of the candidate. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Anybody so easily confused shouldn't be an admin candidate. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • IMHO, if in making a point someone has caused major disruption (as seen here), chances are that was the intent. ;-) --Ipatrol (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Those pushing for a RfX ban are seeking to silence dissent. Misguided dissent, maybe, but bureaucrats have the discretion to ignore his vote. This ban will have a chilling effect on RfA opposes at a time when potential (and current) administrators need more, and not less, scrutiny than in the past. As someone who has voiced unpopular opinions at RfA, I have to wonder whether I'll be next. Perhaps that's the intent. Skinwalker (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Of course potential admins need scrutiny, although not too much as adminship is not a big deal. But DougsTech is not opposing based on the individual candidates, he's template opposing based on an unrelated reason and not explaining his stance. As I've said before, the oppose section of each individual RFA is not the place to be making a point about the total number of admins. That belongs on WT:RFA. There are plenty of valid reasons to topic ban this person without including the fact that the facts and an overwhelming majority of Wikipedians disagree with his view. Timmeh! 22:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  I'm going to digress for a moment and express what I expect to be a very unpopular opinion. "Not a big deal" is, IMO, a antiquated and harmful canard that needs to be put to rest. If it were not a big deal, adminship could be easily removed, not tied up in gigabytes of endless discussion and arbitration only to result in a "strongly urged" decision. If it were not a big deal, discretionary sanctions that allow individual admins to abrogate consensus would not exist. If it were not a big deal, we wouldn't have habitual sockpuppeteers spending months or years grooming accounts for RfA. If it were not a big deal, rank-and-file admins would not have access to sensitive and at times nonpublic information via deleted revisions. Since Wikipedia is one of the first terms that come up in a google search on a given topic, administrative control over this site and who has it is a very, very serious topic. One or two bad admins can (and do) hijack articles and skew them away from mainstream, encyclopedic coverage. People read these articles and consider them fact. It's not just silly buggers with high-school vandal whack-a-mole anymore. Adminship is most certainly a big deal. But I digress. I don't see anything in your comment that touches on my concern about chilling effects on oppose !voting. Skinwalker (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, perhaps a hardline needs to be drawn about people who blanket oppose candidates. Thanks for bringing your own example up. I'll be sure to propose something once this is dealt with. Chilling effect or not, it's disrupting and inappropriate for RFA. Majorly talk 23:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Wow. Bring it. As an aside, you seem to have a large amount of emotion and anger invested in matters concerning adminship and RfA. Other editors have noted this as well. I suggest you walk away for a bit and allow the community to, one way or another, put out the fire you've started. The boorish and intimidatory comment you made above is spectacularly unhelpful. Skinwalker (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah, perhaps consider why - maybe because POINTy RFA votes, such as your own, DougsTech's etc are tolerated as much as they are, and said people claim I am the one causing the problem. Try looking at the start of the chain: perhaps if people started using RFA for what it was created for, perhaps there wouldn't be need for threads like this. It is not my fault people abuse RFA and use it as their soapbox for whatever they want to say, and nor is it my fault people tolerate it. So stop trying to shift the blame for the "fire" on me. The vast majority of people agree with me on this issue, not you. And you seriously think I'd waste my time trying to get you banned from RFA too? As much as I detest your template POINT, at least you don't oppose every single one, and at least the candidate has a chance of deciding if they want to risk being opposed by you. DougsTech offers no such thing. Majorly talk 23:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Two points. First, I'm not sure that, in this case, I understand the distinction between silencing dissent and systematically ignoring dissent. No crat takes this seriously and every single oppose of Doug is accompanied by a clear "let him be, nobody cares". Secondly, those who have read Doug's explanation on WT:RFA know that his opposition is basically directed at the power structure created by adminship. Even if you're sympathetic to that opinion, it's clearly not something that you can change through blanket opposes of RfAs. It's a much more fundamental debate that actually has nothing to do with RfA itself. If Doug wants to discuss it, he should do so at the village pump or some mailing list (or gasp! Wikipedia Review). We'd have no second thoughts about removing an oppose reading "Oppose: every BLP should be semi-protected" and Doug's blanket opposes are of the same nature. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Considering some of the reasons that are put forth to oppose RfAs, Doug's predictable opinion is hardly a cause for concern. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support per NuclearWarfare. It is a POINTy oppose and the very kind of thing we want to avoid at RfA. Enigma^msg 22:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose If he's doing it to make trouble for the sake of making trouble, then he's a troll & (as Tony Fox pointed above) the best thing to do with trolls is ignore them. If he's sincere (but misguided), then ignoring him will encourage him to find another, more acceptible way to present his reasons. -- llywrch (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose His reason is much more valid than some others I have seen here. And you know what, he's sincere. He could find a less controversial reason to still vote oppose all the time. --Avg (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose He should be allowed to voice his opinion. His judgement is valid. -download | sign! 00:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Really? I honestly do not know of any other vote that I classify as less valid than this one. Even no oppose rationale has some implied meaning: "I disagree entirely with the nom" or "My views on this candidate are obvious" or an implied "per above". However, opposing every single user because you disagree with the makeup of Wikipedia, something that the candidate cannot help, well...Look around at WT:RFA or this ANI thread. Not one person has said "I agree with DougsTech." All the oppose voters are giving an argument of "slippery slope" or "he has a right to say this." Well... he really doesn't. If this had been AfD, DougsTech would have been banned long ago (see User:Juvenile Deletionist for a recent case). Why is RfA so different that WP:Free Speech suddenly does not apply there.
  • I welcome DougsTech to try to convince people at WT:RFA; he is not being topic banned from that. But if no bureaucrat is counting his opinion (and if one is, I welcome him or her to speak), then what is the point of keeping his (conspicuous absence of a !)vote in and encouraging future drama when an administrator promotes below 70% because they ignored Doug's vote. Or something like that. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This is literally a topic ban because WP:IDONTLIKEHIM. If you find him annoying, don't read his comments-- you can oppose for any reason you wish, including no reason. Jtrainor (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. He should be free to express his views at RfA. The only thing disruptive about his comments are editors' reactions to them. We can't assume bad faith either. Maybe he really believes that administrators are harming the encyclopedia and that their numbers should be capped. The point is, if this is his attempt at improving the encyclopedia, let him make his argument. That does not mean anybody has to listen, but we should not prevent him from trying to improve the encyclopedia in the way he sees fit. Malinaccier (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Ban. Enough is enough. He's been marring RfAs with his WP:POINT that has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the candidate. It's quite disruptive and doesn't belong in an RfA. Valley2city^‽ 03:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose - An editor in good standing has the right to express an opinion, regardless of whether we agree with it or not. I supported Kurt, I support User:Keepscases and really anyone who is participating in the process. All this talk of WP:POINT is way off base; as has already been pointed out, the disruption that has occurred is in the reaction far more than in the comment. And the supposed contrast to Kurt's robotic opposes is also off base; "too many admins" is no less focused on an editor than "self-nom" was.  Frank  |  talk  05:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  "Too many admins" refers to admins and Wikipedia generally. There are more than 1000 admins. "Self-nom" and "power hunger" are talking about a specific candidate. How could there possibly be no difference between the two? There is a huge difference. Timmeh! 14:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  "Self-nom" and "power hunger" were never about a specific candidate; they were automatic opposes and were routinely questioned...and candidates were routinely cautioned that Kurt "always" did that (he opposed me too; read the edit summary in particular). In fact, there was the CDB question as well; Kurt actually was disruptive with that one. I don't claim it's a perfect analogue, but they are very similar to this patterned oppose.  Frank  |  talk  19:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  He opposed each self-nom because he thought each of those candidates was too power hungry. DougsTech opposes every candidate regardless of how qualified they are and regardless of anything the candidate has done. Jimbo Wales could de-sysop himself and nominate himself for adminship, and DougsTech would still oppose his RfA. There is a difference. That difference is causing DougsTech's !voting to be much more disruptive than Kurt's were, not to mention this guy is putting the "too many admins" comment in the totally wrong place, where Kurt's, although annoying, were appropriately placed in the RfAs. Timmeh! 20:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  That's not how I remember it. I remember Kurt opposing every self-nom with the prima facie comment and an edit summary that said the same thing: "Oppose, self-nom". In fact, I only ever found 1 or 2 candidates that he supported; not that I did a long study of it so that could be wrong... But the point is, his automatic position was to oppose any self-nom candidate. In fact, if you look at his oppose, it is very non-personal: "I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger." It actually didn't say anything about the candidate...just that by its very nature, a self-nom was oppose-worthy (or even oppose-required). Those opposes almost universally started with "I" - and rarely included anything specifically about the candidate.  Frank  |  talk  01:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment No matter what the outcome here, if he keeps this up he's going to be topic banned from RfA just like Kurt was. RfA isn't the place to engage in little pointy stunts and people here should know that. Wailing and gnashing your teeth about free speech and groupthink isn't helping anything. We know damn well that we aren't banning someone from a forum because of an opinion. We are banning them because we don't have the physical ability to stop their stunt from disrupting that forum. We can tell ourselves that crats will discount their vote (a proposition which may or may not be true but is wholly irrelevant for the course of an RfA). We can worry that "too many admins" is actually some legitimate position to hold. Or we can just cut to the chase and stop this before it muddles up any future RfA. Wikipedia (and the project space) doesn't exist to service someone's sense of civic virtue. But by all means let this slide for a while. It will be back here eventually. Protonk (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support User has been asked to explain his opinion many times and has never done so, only claimed he's entitled to it and the askers have no authority to decide Rfa.--Patton^t/c 10:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. All editors have the right to vote in whatever manner they want. I see no reason whatsoever to deny this user his right.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:06, April 7, 2009 (UTC)

  !Voting is not a right, it's a privilege. If an editor can't make his !vote without causing disruption, it should be taken away. Timmeh! 15:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  What disruption??? Aren't we talking about just one vote per nom? With the rationale provided for those votes, they can hardly sway anyone else's opinion, yet alone cause "disruption".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:26, April 8, 2009 (UTC)

• Support by default because Doug's agenda would be better served by trying to stop the entire RFA process altogether. That is what he is trying to achieve anyway. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't agree with the opinion, but it's fine for him to express it. Sure, it's not the right venue and it's pointy, but that happens a lot on Wikipedia. Most people who do that make asses of themselves and wind up being ignored.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Doug is spamming the RfA nominations, wasting the time of every single editor who has to mentally (if familiar) skip over his posting or (if unfamiliar) puzzle out that the comment is pointless. Doug is welcome to write an essay about why he thinks there are too many admins, and to present statistics at WT:RFA about the lack of admin backlogs, and so on, but inserting absolutely irrelevant comments into individual RfAs is unjustified. And the comments are absolutely irrelevant - no bureaucrat should give them even the slightest weight, because they are *not* about the candidates. What would the community say about someone who posted, in every single AfD, the comment Delete, Wikipedia has too many articles? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It's really not that different. This AN thread is basically a Kurt Weber redux. The RfA "comments" are unhelpful trolling and do not comment on the candidacy. Doug's defenders, like Kurt's defenders, simply claim that it's everyone else's fault for responding to them and that topic banning them would be stifling the opinion of people you don't like. Those two arguments completely miss the point. 1)Several hundred people have commented on RfAs recently. You expect all of them to have the knowledge and self-control not respond to trolling? Really? I have never responded to stock trolling comments at RfAs, but it's unrealistic to assume everyone else will do the same. To prevent disruption, you topic ban the cause. 2)Stifling opinion would be if there was someone who found reasons to oppose many RfAs and then demanded that user stop opposing or else. This is simply an attempt to rid RfA of obvious disruption. Aside from the fact that he's completely wrong and refuses to consider that reality, if Doug believes there are too many admins, trolling every single RfA is not the proper way to go about it. He has been warned to stop and he has refused. If the topic ban is not implemented, DougsTech should be blocked for disruption if he continues to ignore warnings about his POINTy behaviour. Enigma^msg 16:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly support denying this troll his particular fuel. What a shame; I viewed Doug as a valuable editor until he started trolling the crap out of RfA. Add his edit warring to push his own personal POV the fire, and I utterly fail to see why his behavior shouldn't warrant a block. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, and admonish those who have chosen to make a mountain out of this molehill. All admins who have participated here are clearly superfluous to requirements, as they obviously can find nothing constructive to do with their time here. DuncanHill (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support per the giant thread on WT:RFA. I note some of the opposers above say he's not hurting anything. Well, in my view, he's an attention seeker, who is getting attention? WP:DENY, yeah, I know, but a ban from RFX would deny them the attention they want, and waste less people's time squabbling over this user's conduct. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 22:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: If it is really a big deal someone copy and paste spamming RfAs, then by that same logic we should ban anyone who rapid fire copy and paste spams AfDs with "Delete, nnotable" and "Delete, cruft" in a manner that does not reflect adequate consideration of the individual articles under discussion or say ban someone who's sole purpose is to "vote" to delete in every AFD regardless of individual merits or changes to the article during the discussion (yes, I can actually think of one such account). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. In my opinion, it has nothing to do with whether or not his opinion is unpopular, or even if it's correct. The problem is that he is spamming it in a completely incorrect venue. His opposes have nothing to do with the candidate on whose page he is placing it, and so they have no place. No more place than off-topic spam has anywhere in Wikipedia. Individual RFAs are not platforms for debate or discussion of adminship or RFA in general, they serve no other purpose save to determine the candidates qualification for adminship.--Dycedarg ж 00:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It seems that DougsTech has actually !voted neutral in an RFA recently, but I don't know if he plans to continue doing it. I, along with another editor, have suggested to him that instead of repeatedly opposing, he could instead repeatedly stay neutral and make his comment there. That way, he would attract much less attention for his comment and cause less disruption. If he listens to our advice and goes through with it is yet to be seen, maybe even unlikely as he doesn't seem to be very willing to listen to advice, but if he does, I don't think a ban would be needed. Timmeh! 00:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose There are numerous votes made at RFA which provide little or no reason. Attempting to suppress votes which provide a particular reason is improper and unhelpful as it will discourage editors from providing reasons and so reduce the rational nature of the process. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Let him !vote how he wants, and let the bureaucrats afford his vote every shred of weight which it should be accorded... i.e., none whatsoever. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose You're kidding me? You're giving DougsTech this much power over you? --KP Botany (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support; this is clear trolling. Wikipedians made a huge mistake giving Kurt the rope he was allowed; don't make the same mistake again. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • According to the user who you mentioned's userpage, he left per right to vanish. As such, bringing him up in an unrelated thread seems bad taste and unconstructive. We shouldn't kick people while they're down as it were. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • RTV doesn't make one a saint. Kurt was an annoyance. And he would've been banned if he didn't invoke RTV. Speaking of which, didn't you RTV too? Sceptre ^(talk) 03:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Whether you liked him or not as far as we are all aware he is gone. As such, no need to write about him any further. Why beat a dead horse? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Kurt was bullied off. Those responsible would be ashamed of themselves if they had any sense of decency at all. I suspect the same will be attempted against DougsTech. DuncanHill (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, but April Fool's Day was last week. Kurt harassed and trolled his way around on the wiki and it's better that he's gone. If you're defending it, you should be ashamed of yourself. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
            • You, of all people, have no right to suggest that anyone should be ashamed of themselves after the way you behaved at the time Sceptre. DuncanHill (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
              • I lash out at someone who harasses various editors including myself and an at-the-time fragile female admin, and suddenly I'm the devil incarnate and he's the arch-angel Gabriel? Sceptre ^(talk) 04:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
                • Devil incarnate? Don't flatter yourself. DuncanHill (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
                  • It's irrelevant. Given what has been said, if you think Kurt was in anyway a good Wikipedian, you really need to see a psychiatrist. Because believe me, you need to be pretty fucked up in the head to think that his campaign of harassment was in any way defendable. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
                    • Oh, I think (as you described him above) that he was an annoyance. I think that you are an annoyance too, and me (I certainly hope I am), and a lot of other editors too for that matter. I also think that annoyances are sometimes not just useful but essential. DuncanHill (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
                      • Going out of your way to be an annoyance, however, isn't on. You have the right to dissent, but you do not have the right to abuse that right. Which is what Kurt did, and which is what Doug is doing. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
                        • I don't think DougsTech is abusing that right. DuncanHill (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
                          • The blanket opposing on itself would be annoying but tolerable. Then going around and disrupting the RfA templates is getting to POINT behaviour. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

While I oppose the above proposal, why make it a topic ban? Why prevent him from expressing his thoughts altogether? If the concern is solely an "oppose because we have too many admins", why restrict him from commenting in RfAs altogether? So, why not make a blanket ban on "opposing because of too many admins" from any editor and allow DougTech to participate in RfAs so long as he uses different arguments that do focus on specific candidates? Again, I don't believe anyone should be restricted, but I think we should not prevent any editor from commenting in RfAs altogether. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but the argument itself isn't flawed... there could, at some point, be too many admins. Maybe there are too many now, and maybe there are too few. Dougstech makes this vote blind, and without ever supporting his assertion, even when challenged. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This would be fine, but my senses tell me that the user will simply pick another phrase to template each RFA with. I think stricter is better, to be honest. Majorly talk 02:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

He would find another phrase to oppose on. "Additional administrators are not needed"?  iMatthew :  Chat  02:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the editor obviously does not have any intention of commenting on a candidate's ability/non-ability to be a good admin. He has no reason to if he believes there should not be any more admins. He would either rephrase his comment or oppose without a stated reason. Timmeh! 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, editors support without a stated reason, so why not allow editors to oppose without a stated reason? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

When someone supports an RFA without a stated reason, it is basically shorthand for "I agree with the nominating statement". When you oppose, there should be a valid reason why you don't think the candidate in question should have the tools. Timmeh! 02:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of rationale-less supports myself, but usually these are intended as, and interpreted as, tacit agreement with the nominator's statements. Reyk _YO! 02:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You know one thing I always find confusing about RfAs is is it supposed to be a discussion or a vote? I feel similarly with AfDs, but at least those are more apt to be discussion oriented, but really in both cases, we are told they are not votes, yet they look like lists of bold faced support/oppose and keep/delete, i.e. votes rather than actual threaded and interactive discussion and it seems that some get overly defensive when challenged, which is disheartening because in an academic discourse, people should challenge each other and be open to being challenged in order to reach a more nuanced conclusion. Nevertheless, in both cases, we seem to have something in between. So, it should be made more clear that we either bring something new to the table and have a discussion in these things and pure votes be discouraged or we just let everything be fair game. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be discussion-based, not vote-based. There should be at least a rough consensus among the participants to grant the candidate adminship. In almost every RFA, there is at least one discussion in the oppose section, initiated when a user disagreed with an oppose reason. Opposes are made in response to the nominating statement/candidate's answers to questions, and comments are then made in response to those. I have seen some very heated discussions in the oppose section of RFAs in the past, and the RFA nominating process is definitely not just a vote-and-it's-over-with deal. Anyway, I think we've delved a bit too much off-topic. Timmeh! 03:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Do not support: I view ban proposals as prima facie evidence of power hunger. seicer | talk | contribs 03:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ignore it entirely, as I'm sure the crats do also. Its not worth interfering. If you do not let yourself get bothered, and do not respond to it, there is very little problem. I'm very reluctant to censor pointy people, as long as they do not actually disrupt things. DGG (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  The problem is that he is disrupting things. By making the comment, he invites the questions of many editors who have not seen the original discussion on his RFA votes and causes more controversy, which is centered on the RFA page. And the RFA page is for discussing the RFA candidate, not whether there are too many admins or whether DougsTech's votes are legitimate. Timmeh! 03:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I personally just ignore Doug's "!votes", as I suspect the closers do. To be honest, I'm surprised I haven't seen the !vote struck with an "Invalid argument" edit summary yet. I can understand the disruption arguments listed here, but unless there is reason enough to suspect that Doug's Tech is actually a "Sock-o-Kurt", (and open a WP:SPI), then procedure should be followed. Were Doug's !votes the only issue, I could see my way clear to an "Oppose" as far as the ban. On the other side of the fence, we have the template edit waring, and he's received a proper level-1 warning (without being templated). He's obviously attempted to make a WP:POINT, and with this and this editing, it appears to me that he's now attempting to game the system. My understanding is that a level-2 warning would now be appropriate. The community should not be too quick to block or ban simply because they don't like something - we all have a voice here, regardless of how ill-informed, it may be. Follow procedure, issue the warnings, block when needed, and if the disruption continues then open a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct to discuss a proper ban. IMHO. — Ched :  ?  05:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per my oppose in the above section. Ruslik (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Whilst I don't think Douglas is a troll of any kind, he does seem to be trying to make a WP:POINT that would be better served via the RFA talkpages and perhaps the Village Pump or some other venue; continuing on individuals RFAs seems disruptive now, his point has been acknowledged. Skinny87 (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per my support of the topic ban, above. G'day, Jack Merridew 12:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Even when it's an issue, it still shouldn't be discussed at individual RfAs. Those are simply for judging whether or not the candidate will abuse the tools if entrusted with them. hmwithτ 12:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  If he can't bring it up there, no one should... and this shouldn't be just for this phrase. This should be for any phrase that doesn't directly have to do with the editor. hmwithτ 12:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Are you Joking??? or oppose I guess. What's this?? Votes for banning all over again??? This must be the most stupid proposal that I have seen in ages. Fringe votes like this don't have any material outcome on RFAs and I seem to recall that we have been here before with Kurt Weber. Suppressing fringe views in internal discussions is simply the first stage in imposing group think on our deliberations. Ridiculous. Shame on everyone supporting this nonsense. Just ignore them and explain to RFA candidates that the 'crats ignore the vote anyway. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an important difference between fringe views, and those which are merely unsubstantiated views. DougsTech only posits an unsubstantiated point of view, and is unwilling to back it up with any evidence whatsoever. That is not fringe, it is unsubstantiated, and offensive to the individual RfA candidates. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And all this drama is justified by a meaningless and ignored line in RFAs?? Hmmm... Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. A little drama here is entirely preferred to constant drama in each new RfA, with a repetitious cycle of the next new goober coming up with some ridiculous attention getting blanket oppose. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Everyone is allowed a !vote and I see no reason to strike a !vote just because you don't like it. Striking oppose !votes is a dangerous trend because it discourages others from opposing and should be done very carefully. How about a swing by some of the articles needing attention instead? --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  The reason we don't like it is because it is unsubstantiated, has nothing to do with the qualifications of the candidate in question, and is copy/pasted in just about every single RFA, attracting unknowing editors asking about it and causing controversy until someone explains that DougsTech always does that. It is obvious trolling and violation of WP:POINT. Timmeh! 15:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Then just ignore it. No one is harmed by a generic oppose that will not be considered by a crat. This bland oppose is meaningless and not worth the time you guys are putting into it. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• This user's opposes are valid and presented civily (It's not "prima facie evidence of personal attack removed"). This is not votes for banning, I remember when that was done away with. Get over it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not exactly sure an RFA oppose can be valid when it is an oppose based on the RFA process in general and has nothing to do with the RFA candidate. If I opposed simply because "Wikipedia sucks", would that be valid as well? Should the bureaucrats take that into consideration for determining consensus? Timmeh! 16:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  No and no. It's not valid because wikipedia sucking or not sucking has no bearing on why someone should be promoted to adminstrator. If we had too many admins, we should not promote more admins, so the promotion of this admin is more likley to be a mistake. Beyond this, I doubt that DT's opposes will be taken seriously in any edge-case close by a 'crat. Of course, if he were to be stopped from !voting oppose everywhere, some other user might just decide that I "just can't trust this user with the tools, sorry," in every RFA. What would you do then, ban him? Perhaps he's just not a trusting kind of person? How about "sorry, untill adminstrative recall is fixed and we can remove admins, making more admins is cruising for a bruising?" Just because DT can't write a good blanket oppose doesn't mean blanket opposes are all equally invalid. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Hipocrite makes a very valid point. If !voters can't say what they think, they'll just !vote in the oppose column with some acceptable statement instead. Where will that leave us - cosmetically happy, I suppose, but in some meaning less place as far as the RfA process is concerned. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose- I fear that if we did that, DougsTech would come out with opposes like, "Oppose- candidate missed filling in an edit summary in 2005. Also, too many administrators currently." The truth is that you can't force people to judge a candidate fairly. If DougsTech gets banned from RfA and then has a change of heart and genuinely wants to make constructive contributions there, then we could always review the ban. I don't support imposing a half-way ban that would probably just be gamed anyway. Reyk _YO! 21:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But at least then Doug would have to actually look at the candidate and pretend that he is voting on the candidate... I could at least partially support that (just as I supported Kurt) but when the !vote has nothing to do with the candidate...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose – The only reason I didn't say this earlier was that I knew community ban discussions are left open for a considerable time to allow sufficient discussion and avoid knee-jerk reactions. It seemed clear that people would come to reason. Apparently not. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. All this would do is make RfA even harder to change in the future. We don't ban ideas because we don't like them. Malinaccier (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this one too. Let him speak his peace--I'd rather ignore one hundred honest dissenters with whom I do not agree than silence one of them. Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Surprising how much voting "Too many administrators" has caused such discussion, anxiety, and turmoil. This must be the silliest example of quashing a voice outside of Stalin's Soviet Union I've ever seen. Every administrator here is proving Doug's voice is not overheard, but under listened to. --KP Botany (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like your idea! Ban you!

First they came for the opposers based on too many admins. Then they came for the opposers based on suffrage. Then they came for the opposers based on block history.

Don't you people have enough to do without worrying about a silly opposer that is ignored by bureaucrats anyway? What the hell is the problem here? Has anyone actually found an RfA that was swayed by the unsupported argument that there are too many admins?

Go tilt at some other windmill please and sell crazy somewhere else. We're all stocked up here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What she said. BurnBan the witch! Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe it's even necessary to have to voice support for the above. Skomorokh 16:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point entirely. His opinion is only relevant to this discussion to the point that it has nothing to do with the candidate. If he was opposing every candidate because its 2009, or any other random reason that has nothing to do with the candidate it would be just as disruptive. RFA isn't an anything-goes, free speech zone. If there's consensus that your comments are unhelpful and multiple people ask you to stop, you should. This is a collaborative project. If someone is entirely unable or unwilling to work with others, we don't keep them around just because the negative aspects aren't too bad. The fact that we put up with crap like this for so long is one the reasons we lose good contributors and have trouble keeping new ones; we're more willing to put up with trolls than we are to create a decent editing environment. Forget "collegial," at this point I'd settle for "not shit." Mr.Z-man 17:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In what way is it disruptive? The only disruption I see is caused by nonsense like this, making a fuss about nothing. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, excellent Mr.Z-man. Thank you for your commentary. Would you please be so kind as to direct me to an RfA whose outcome was swayed by the vote of DougsTech? Failing that, would you please come up with ANY rationale as to how this is a problem other than you don't like his vote? He is welcome to his opinion you know. He thinks there are too many admins. Solution; don't promote any more admins. It's a perfectly reasonable vote, and he is HARDly unprecedented. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does the outcome have to be swayed? If someone trolled every thread on ANI or every AFD discussion with some inane repetitive comment it wouldn't change the outcome of those, but we'd almost certainly do something about it other than ignore encourage it. Though I do have to agree with MZMcBride, threads like this, where we admit something is trolling but decide to allow it anyway, because its just RFA and RFA is supposed to represent the project at its worst, are far more disruptive and discourage and drive away far more users than the trolling itself. Mr.Z-man 18:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep schools are notable. Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge per the two above posts. Otherwise, salt and delete. Enigma^msg 22:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus, Hammersoft, et al. Threads like these are far more disruptive than these votes could ever possibly be. And, frankly, DougsTech's trolling is working expertly by causing all of this. If the votes really bother you that much, I'm sure it would be possible to create a JavaScript script of some sort that hides the votes for you. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As with Kurt, all the disruption is created by those who don't like "awkward" opinions. I don't bother to participate in RfA's in part at least because of the way in which !voters are laid open to attack by the thought-police. The other reason I don't participate is the appallingly low standard of admin produced by the current system. DuncanHill (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC/U?

Not to be a party-pooper (actually, yeah), but has anyone considered an WP:RFC/U on the user as opposed to going here? MuZemike 14:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It would have been nice to save some time and effort here. However it may just come to that. Chillum 14:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is no consensus here, we can move to the next stage in the process. However, in my opinion, there is clear consensus this user is a problem, and a net negative to RFA. Majorly talk 14:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, because if there isnt a consensus here to ban them you can simply keep shopping this to another forum in the hope that you can get someone to ban them elsewhere. Honestly, haven't you got enough feedback on what people think from this already? Sheesh. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And that's the problem with this entire discussion. Skipping the "triple dare" and going right to the "triple dog dare". I said "as opposed to coming here" as in "this topic ban discussion should never have started here until at the very least an RFC been tried". Process is important, especially in cases like this. I am in no way encouraging forum shopping. I would rather have users sit down and discuss this in a (hopefully) constructive manner without degenerating to straw polls and having the tyranny of the majority participate in the apparent witch-burning that is going on right now. MuZemike 17:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There can be consensus that what he is doing is inappropriate without there being a consensus that there should be a topic ban. If we can't decide what to do, we can at least agree that this is not productive behavior. A topic ban is not the only way to stop disruptive editing. Chillum 14:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• I cant see the problem. It just requires an RFA regular to append a comment linking to an essay somewhere for non-regulars to get the drift. And, if they don't, it's a very illuminating way of measuring what those responding are really like behind their screens. He may be a gadfly but occasionally gadflies are useful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Although in this case, said gadfly deserves a good swatting. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

←re: MuZemike question about RFC/U: Yes, I mentioned it here. It seems however that a mob mentality has taken root, the drama has increased 10-fold, and I'm not sure much can be done to stem the tide. Proper procedure, as I understand it, from our policy and guideline pages appears to have cast to the wind. I was under the impression when I joined that all editors were to be treated equally, I'm not as secure in that belief as I once was. Make no mistake, I strongly disagree with Doug's conclusions, but I must support his right to voice his opinion. It occurs to me that this "topic ban" vote, (without the !) has created much more drama and disruption than the collective "Too many admins already" posts which apparently the closing 'crats tend to disregard anyway. — Ched :  ?  18:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Some are more equal than others. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I forget sometimes that the proper procedure for trolls is to allow it and encourage them. Silly me, I thought people were supposed to not be disruptive. Mr.Z-man 18:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • If it truly is "trolling", then threads like this massive "ban" drama achieve their desired results, rather then the WP:DENY that is a suggest course of action. imho — Ched :  ?  18:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • • It is only achieving the desirable results because people are insisting on an imaginary "right to opinion", and insisting DougsTech can say whatever he wants to on RFA. If people simply agreed his comments are not productive (and I don't think anyone actually believes his comments are), then perhaps this thread would be over. It was closed earlier today by Rootology - reopened by Spartaz, who then lamely tried to attack me for "loving drama". I'm not the one insisting on keeping this thread opened. I opened it, with a hope that people would see DougsTech for what he is - an attention-seeking individual, here to push a ridiculous agenda, in a totally inappropriate fashion and place. My expectations were, once again, too high. Majorly talk 22:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Dreadful thought... the return of Al Tally to RfA ;-) ---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

←Majorly, I'm not suggesting that Doug's comments are right - I'm only saying that I think this (an AN "Ban him" thread) is not the proper way to go about resolving the problem. If the wording in the RfA/Front matter "Expressing opinions" section were more specific, then there would be a clear case to strike his comment, issue warnings, and if it continued - block. If we could be specific about the "Expressing opinions" being about the candidate and not a "current state of Wikipedia condition", it could resolve a lot of the problems at the root of the issue. If you cover up a mess by throwing a rug over it, the mess still exists. If enough people DONTLIKEIT, then it should be resolvable through procedure and consensus, rather than an ad hoc incident. — Ched :  ?  02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The reverse

I don't see how the "oppose as there are too many admins" is worse than the numerous "support as there are not enough admins" that have been popping up in seeming retaliation. Would be deliberately sarcastic and mocking of another user's stance be the greater concern? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Until there are no admin backlogs whatsoever on a consistent basis, any claims there are too many admins are simply misinformed. I have personally never seen anyone template the same support rationale of needing more admins - perhaps this is because supporting someone is generally seen as a more positive thing to do, and therefore does not get questioned. People simply aren't as affected when it's a supporting rationale. Additionally, supporting generally indicates you agree with the nomination, so perhaps it's simply an addendum to the vote. Majorly talk 18:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we need to block these people immediately. Trolls are precious resources, we need to protect them. Mr.Z-man 18:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe A Nobody is talking about this in particular. No opinion on discussion. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 18:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

One of those was altered, when challenged, to "Sense of humor fail. I have no reason to not trust him". SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, I'm back on AN! :-\ It was a joke, I know some are immune to laughing, but some aren't.  iMatthew :  Chat  19:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If people are supporting candidates for reasons that are nothing to do with the candidate, then I would hope that (a) other contributors would challenge them (b) the 'crats would ignore them and (c) people would ask them to stop. If that has happened and there is still a problem, then we can consider taking further action. I have to say that it seems like DougsTech has got past that point already. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(a) has happened many, many times. (b) has happened and continues to happen (c) I believe DougsTech has been asked to stop, but hasn't, claiming his "right" to an opinion. He has definitely gotten past that point and is continuing to disrupt the RFA process. I still don't understand why some have a problem with taking a privilege away from a disruptive editor. Timmeh! 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the need for more admins has been a common !vote for as long as I've been invovled with RfA. As for why it is different... it goes back to the very principle that we've always expected rationale reasons to oppose, but that support is the default barring reason not to promote.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. I suppose there is an unspoken "per nom" inherent in a support. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am not saying that supporting per "there are not enough admins" is problematic; rather supporting per "there are not enough admins" to be deliberately hostile to another editor's oppose. If you think the oppose per "there are too many admins" is trolling then why not "deny recognition"? If you don't think it is trolling, but just disagree, why be blatantly antagonistic? My concern is supporting with a rationale to be deliberately counter to someone's oppose. It just seems to fan the fires, no? And again, my opinion remains that people should pretty much be able to say whatever they want so long as it is not blatantly libelous. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see the difference between this "there are too many admins" and the more particular "there are too many vandal fighters" or other incarnations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• The problem isn't that "there are too many admins", nor is it that "there are too few admins". The problem is that there are too many bad admins, and too few good ones (say a dozen). DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Well, I don't know if I would say there are only a dozen good admins. I agree that there are too many bad ones (even if there was only one bad admin, that would be one too many...and I can think of several who close AfDs biasedly for example), but I can probably list at least a dozen good admins off hand with whom I may not always agree, but I think by and large are "good" by my standards. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as there are so few things to do on en.wiki that admins have the time to go by AN/I and take a cheap shot at an editor or contribute to the billionth thread on the same half dozen users one more time, any claim that there are not enough admins is just ridiculous. --KP Botany (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Close this thread

In the absence of any ACTUAL policy violations shown on the part of this guy, I propose this thread be archived immediately and trouts handed out all around. Go find something better to do with your time than censoring people you find annoying. Jtrainor (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

He is clearly violating WP:POINT, is he not? Timmeh! 17:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not clearly, because if it were clear multiple editors would not oppose any sanctions. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Timmeh, this [5] looks like running to Mummy when you can't get your way. DuncanHill (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it against policy to ask for Jimmy Wales' input on this? Timmeh! 18:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Which other editors will you be asking in this way? DuncanHill (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Which other editors would you like me to ask to comment here? I believe I already asked one or two whom I saw commenting on this at WT:RFA. There obviously is nothing close to a consensus here, and I was just interested in what his opinion would be on this. He is the founder of Wikipedia, after all. Timmeh! 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, firstly, you shouldn't do anything that might be seen as canvassing (for example, contacting people who you have seen already express opinions similar to your own). Secondly, if you want to know what the "founder" of Wikipedia thinks, you should be asking Larry as well as Jimmy. DuncanHill (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Larry is obviously not interested in Wikipedia anymore. The only edits he has made since August of last year were to Jimbo Wales' talk page. If you wish to contact him and ask him for input, I have no objections. Anyway, canvassing does not include sending a message to one editor. Timmeh! 18:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The advice about canvassing was in response to "I believe I already asked one or two whom I saw commenting on this at WT:RFA" - I'm not saying you were canvassing, I'm sure you included people who were opposed of your position as well as those who supported it. DuncanHill (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked back and found I only contacted one person about it. Therefore, it wasn't canvassing. Thanks anyway for the advice. It doesn't hurt to be reminded of policies and guidelines once in a while. Timmeh! 19:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• You gotta be kidding me. Contacting Wales about this????? <stunned look> If we needed proof this thread has gone past its useful life, there it is. Support close. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Since when is having an opinion pointy? Jtrainor (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Close this thread. Please go back to building an encyclopedia and commenting on peoples opinions less--DFS454 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT is not policy. If it's about him breaking policy, then quote policy. --KP Botany (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been waiting for someone to bring that up. I just kept saying that all my !votes are within policy. They never actually bothered to see that its not official policy.DougsTech (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Policies aren't magically more important than guidelines. The only difference between the two is that policies instruct and guidelines advise. No-one would really say the deletion policy is more important than AGF. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Discounting his "votes" before this discussion is closed?

I just noticed Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#RFA_tallies. Per my comment there, I am totally uncomfortable with others editing or discounting someone else's "vote" in an RfA. Unless if DougTech is a blocked sock, we shouldn't be editing his posts while the matter is still under discussion and especially given that many editors have expressed support for his ability to comment above. I fear playing games with his posts in existing discussions sets the stage for needless strife maybe even edit warring between his supporters and critics. We should if anything worry about future RfAs only and not those already underway. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech probably is a sockpuppet, judging by his early contributions. But this discussion should take place on RFA talk not here. I already explain why his so-called opinion is ignored by bureaucrats. Majorly talk 23:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Has every single bureaucrat said his opinion is being discounted? And even if so, burecrats probable discount many weak stances, but we don't go about preemptively striking them for the editors. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

One bureaucrat, Bibliomaniac15, has said this (diff upon request, it's a bit hard to find). I don't think any other bureaucrat would seriously consider Doug's oppose comments. That said, I find the !vote striking, tally manipulation, and bullying to be highly vindictive and inappropriate. There is no consensus, per the above megathread, that his comments should be restricted. Skinwalker (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

All this is doing is causing edit warring on the RfAs, which if anything is all the more so unfair to the candidates. Now granted I have no intentions of running for adminship, but if someone opposed per too many admins, it really wouldn't bother me, even if it affected the tally. In fact, it would probably bother me less as it obviously isn't personal. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Any remarks that aren't personal have no place on RFA votes. You can scream "People are entitled to their opinion!" all you like, but the fact is, anything off-topic to the discussion at hand has no place on individual RFAs. It's about as relevant as me opposing a candidate with "Oppose - not enough google hits". It could be that I prefer administrators to have some notability, so my oppose would be perfectly valid, in a twisted way. But it really, really is off topic and irrelevant to the discussion at hand, so has no place there. Majorly talk 00:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, do you not trust the bureaucrats to count and make their minds up for themselves? DuncanHill (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to make it clear to people in the RFA that the vote is routinely dismissed. Since we don't want to feed the trolls, allowing DougsTech to continue will inevitably get somebody unfamiliar questioning the rationale - hence, feeding the troll. This is why I feel it so important that trolling is removed from RFAs. Some people here disagree and believe someone's soapboxing/trolling is more important than the integrity of a process that's already got a poor reputation. That's all the vote is - I don't believe anyone seriously agrees with DougsTech. RFA is supposed to be a consensus building process on the candidate's suitability to be an admin. How on earth do DougsTech's "opinions" help in any way shape or form build consensus about that particular candidate? They simply don't. They're unhelpful, soapboxing and abusing the process. It's unfathomable why people are defending him so much. Either people are too nice, and are assuming too much good faith, or they're not seeing the disruption I am. Majorly talk 00:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I do see disruption, but not from DougsTech. DuncanHill (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is caused by DougsTech's actions which he refuses to explain. Timmeh! 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I failed to explain them here,and it is explained 3 times here, and on WT:RFA and on wp:an. Do not say that I have not explained it again. If you do not understand my reason, do NOT fail to acknowledge it.DougsTech (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You explained why you think there are too many admins. You did not explain why you choose to copy/paste the same oppose reason for multiple RFAs regardless of the candidate and cause disruption instead of discussing it at an appropriate place. Timmeh! 01:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So his curious oppose !votes justify you and others engaging in disruptive editing? DuncanHill (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's going to be pretty hard to stop dozens of editors unfamiliar with DougsTech from questioning him and feeding the troll which only causes heated arguments and more disruption. Timmeh! 01:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly impossible to stop people from feeding the trolls who are stirring up this issue. DuncanHill (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be going essentially nowhere. Everyone is set in stone on their side of the issue, there is no meeting of the minds on either side, and nobody is changing their opinions. How about we chalk this entire episode--including this latest coda--up to Wikipedia once again being unable to either recognise or deal with disruption in any sort of meaningful way and call it a day? //roux   02:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, close with no result. RFA frequently gets disrupted, not so much by editors who state their opposition, but rather by the RFA crowd who launch immense discussions on "what's broken about RFA". Put this sardine in the same can, trust in the bureaucrats to sort through the substantive RFA !votes and comments. Franamax (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)