Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:29, 18 February 2008

Archives

Archive 1. Archive 2.

Re:Success in finding rare fact about Boeing 737!

Haha

That was funny, i was just looking at the diff of that edit, moved to next page, and has a message from you!

Certainly that is adding to Misplaced Pages, in a very good way!

Stuff such as that certainly does need references!

Reedy Boy 19:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

what a compliment! reproduced below

I'd encourage you to keep adminship in mind - I see you've already had need to report some vandals and have been involved in the occasional deletion discussion. You don't have to dedicate hours of your time to vandal reverting and deletion discussions to show people you could handle those areas if need be. And being willing to update protected pages like DYK is a very good reason to want to be an adminstrator. In a month or two, I think you could be in a position for a successful RfA if that was something you wanted to do. WjBscribe 21:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Bead crochet

Expanded. Is that enough? I have a second example I could photograph and upload for the page. Durova 23:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Archived 1 January 2008, a few selected edits are kept above.

Boeing 747 wins FA status

• Jeff and Archtransit, congratulations on Boeing 747 winning FA status. The FA star is now in place.--Dan Dassow (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well done! 4u1e (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the huge input you made to achieve this! --JCG33 (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Finally! Congradulations! Basketball110 _{the pages I've messed up completely} 00:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Header

Here is the page User:TonyTheTiger/Header_template. Look at the code. Then look at the code on User:TonyTheTiger which transcludes it. For revealing my trick I would appreciate it if you would consider looking at Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of United States business school rankings. I need one or two more supports.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

dyk

On 29 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Crispin Conroy, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Fairchoice

Did you discuss your unblock with the blocking admin? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I dug around a bit, and apparently, no, he did not. -- Bellwether _C 21:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually Guy's talk page says "Retired" (tired, not retired), and he has a note asking for Misplaced Pages-related stuff to go here. Check his contribs - he's active. Guettarda (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit did post something in this regards here, to be fair, under the assumption that JzG was in fact, what his talkpage said he was. Keeper | 76 21:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Guy is not retired. It has said 'Retired' on his page for ages. Archtransit left a message on Sandstein's talkpage, but Sandstein hasn't responded yet. This may have been hasty. 21:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

:It isn't Archtransit's job to decide if the retired message on guy's talkpage means he's really retired or only labelled as such. Keeper | 76 21:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC). Although I don't agree it is completely obvious that JzG is or isn't retired on first glance, I agree with the statements below that further investigation (the block and unblock are 1/2 hour apart) should have been taken by Archtransit. However, as I stated above, he did make a good faith attempt to be transparent and discuss his decision with another involved admin based on his perception that JzG was retired. Keeper | 76 21:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he's been consistently posting on all the noticeboards, has a link at the bottom of his page to add stuff to "wp stuff", recently made the block on Fairchoice (which AT reversed) and has many recent contribs and posts to his pages should be enough of an indication that he isn't retired. 21:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

a My question is this: If one admin blocks, and two admins decline an unblock request, how is it appropriate to then go back and unblock this person with a message to "Have a cup of tea" without getting any input from any other admin? 21:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User is not unblocked. User is blocked for 48 hours by ME. Archtransit (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't wikilawyer, it's unbecoming. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The user in question was blocked and is still blocked. This is fact, not wikilawyering. There is a big difference between not being blocked and being blocked 48 hours. Archtransit (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that Archtransit should bring up his hasty unblock on guys non-sympathy talk page, easily locatable from his talk page, at User_talk:JzG/wp-stuff. Of course, Archtransit should have reviewed the talk page of JzG as opposed to just unblocking and assuming that guys user page (which has the "re" in "retired" crossed out, it's funnyhahah) was dispositive of his status - epsecially given the unblock came less than 30 minutes after the block. One wonders if Archtransit dilligently looked through all of Fairchoices contributions before his unblock - he would have known about JzG's temporary talk page from this series. Perhaps we can write this off to newbie admin mistake? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's not. And anyone familiar with Guy at all--but especially an administrator considering unblocking a recent block by him--should have known that. The barest bit of research reveals that Guy is still active. -- Bellwether _C 21:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the archive, PouponOnToast. 21:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, AT has conveniently "archived" all of the threads that would alert an interested party to his brief (but numerous) history of bad blocks/unblocks in his equally brief time as an administrator. -- Bellwether _C 21:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have fully reviewed all relevent archives. It seems possible this was just an newbie admin mistake that AT has not yet been informed on how to do right and easily correctable. For future reference, one should not unblock individuals without discussing with the blocking admin. If the blocking admin is really retired, they'll just not respond to the request to discuss, and after a reasonable period of non response (48 hours, perhaps? You could have told the user that you were going to unblock him unless convinced otherwise in two days, and it would have had the same effect!), then unblocked. Instead, you wheelwared with JzG because the top of his user page says he is retired, and you believed that in the 25 minutes after he blocked the user in question he must have retired. Understandable, I guess. Hope that helps! PouponOnToast (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Archtransit has already used up all the goodwill that is granted for "newbie admin mistakes." This is just one more in a series of serious misjudgments on their part. — Satori Son 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. If you are no longer able to assume that these mistakes are correctable, perhaps Archtransit is not yet prepared to be an admin. Arch, could you detail the recall procedure you would accept? (ref - )PouponOnToast (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Conveniently, he made it so that he couldn't be "recalled" through the first 30 days of his tenure as an admin. I think what it will take to get him to stop taking these kind of unilateral actions is an Arbcom. -- Bellwether _C 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see any particular rush. What damage can he do over the next +/- 10 days of blocking users who should be unblocked and unblocking users who should be blocked? I believe this action can be correctable by behavior modification. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bellwether, there are ways to go about this without the addition of the convenientlies. That is an assumption of bad faith. Last I checked, you have archives too. And last I checked, being part of the admin group open to recall is conveniently not even required. Stop with the "pitchforks and torches" mentality as it is unhelpful. Your userpage says you are an educator - perhaps you can help educate archtransit instead of throwing him off a cliff? Keeper | 76 22:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I do "have archives." But I archive according to the dates the messages were sent, not according to which might make me look bad. -- Bellwether _C 22:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Patience is definitely in order for new admins, as there is a steep learning curve. However, a new admin should also be wise enough not to approach that steep curve at 90 mph after a few martinis. It will be much easier to educate etc if Archtransit will simultaneously make an effort to be just a bit more circumspect. May I suggest that you (Archtransit) submit every block, besides those for obvious and clear-cut vandalism, to review on WP:AN or WP:AN/I for the next 20 or 30 blocks? The worst that will happen is that no one will comment, or people will at least give you credit for seeking feedback. At best, you'll get a useful sanity check and backup and repair some of the difficulty people are having with your nascent adminstrative career. MastCell 22:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Response

(ec) The blocking administrator says "I don't mind your setting an expiry, provided you are content to assist in monitoring this editor's behaviour and reblocking if the problems continue. I'm not convinced this user has any intention of being anything other than a warrior, but would be happy to be proved wrong. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Fairchoice"

Sandstein had doubts about the length of the block being indefinite.

Mangojuice made comments of "claims" and "allege" in partial support of some of the user's concerns about how the article was written.

Based on two comments and after-the-fact comments of the administrator that we now know is not retired, the reduction in block can be justified. Note that I did not unblock the user. I also gave the user advice on editing.

If you oppose anything other than indefinite block, you should argue with Guy, who made the above comment (see this subsection). I suspect that some of the protest is because of opposition to me, not the new duration of the block, because there would have been more anger directed at Guy's comments. Archtransit (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

After the fact comments from the blocking adminstrator are categorically not good enough. You are already in hot water. Allow me to go back to your archive and ask you to affirm what someone else asked you to affirm - "are you prepared, from now on, to commit to discussing unblocks prior to implementing these?" I have reviewed the "discussion" you undertook and it was pathetic - you ask an acceptable admin for advice you proffer adviceyou unblock. The word discuss takes two people. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(after modification to the initial statement) I oppose your process. You modified the duration of the block to make it substantially shorter (AKA "unblocked") without engaging in discussion. This is not acceptable ever. That your unblock was ok makes you lucky, not right. Never do this again. Please reaffirm "are you prepared, from now on, to commit to discussing unblocks prior to implementing these?" PouponOnToast (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule that says an admin is required to discuss with the blocking admin, although it is courteous to do so as an assumption of good faith. So the bolded "not acceptable ever" really is an overstatement that is drama looking for a problem. Keeper | 76 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Before this goes too far, I'd like to get an opinion from WJBscribe. He has sort of been AT's de facto admin mentor (and RfA nominator) and I think we can all respect his opinion on how this should be viewed. 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please tell that to people who are blocked, "is it the same as being unblocked?". Of course, no! The user is blocked for 2 full days; he/she is not unblocked. The blocking admin accepts the reduction in duration. "That your unblock was ok makes you lucky" writes PouponOnToast. Not lucky, but I thought there was sufficient doubt by 2 other well known users (Sandstein and Mangojuice) that indefinite block was not necessary. If there were no signs of other well known users, I would have taken a different course of action. My actions were mere interpretations of other's comments. I did not instigate unblocking. Archtransit (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• • This is getting pedantic at this point, but I'm happy to keep repeating myself untill you get it. The unblock request had been declined 2x. It had only been 10 minutes from your first comment on the issue (on a users talk page) to your unblock. This is not sufficient time. You were talked to by scores of people last time you unblocked without discussion. More users are coming out of the woodwork now. You can either continue to defend yourself and we can move forward from there, or you can realize you did something wrong, and take steps to fix your process. Pick one. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• • To be clear, my concern is not the status of the editor here but your actions relative to that status. Personally, I think an indef block might have been pushing it - but two admins declined an unblock, and neither of them determined that a revision of the time period was necessary. Prior to any communication with either of the decliners or the blocking admin, you reduced the block (rather than unblocking, although 48 hours is certainly quite a bit different than indefinite and the net result is an eventual unblock). The lack of discussion is concerning, especially considering your history here and the fact that you had just recently said you would discuss such events prior to taking an action "as a general rule." I would have thought you would be a little more gunshy with this type of thing, particularly since your RfA was ostensibly to allow you to participate more fully in DYK. I think what everyone would like from you here is a clear statement that you recognize you have made errors of judgment (not errors of understanding custom or policy) and that, upon reflection, you have decided to exercise a much greater degree of care in the future. Is that a statement you feel you can make? (I know I said hold up to wait for WJBscribe, and I still think thats a good idea, but I thought I'd include a more complete 2 cents than what I wrote above). 22:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not disagreeing with your rationale, necessarily, but it's important to understand that when you unblock, you are responsible for the call. Neither Sandstein nor Mangojuice unblocked, though they had the ability to do so. That ought to figure into your interpretation of their comments as well. In at least one recent Arbitration case (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman), ArbCom has taken a pretty strong stance in favor of individual admin accountability and against diffusing responsibility by saying something like "My actions were mere interpretations of others' comments." Again, I'm sure you're feeling a bit defensive right now and I'm not trying to pile on, but if you're going to unblock then it's important to realize that the decision is on you, and to make sure that you've lined up whatever you think appropriate to support that decision before acting. MastCell 22:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein and Mangojuice's comments were important to me as an expression of some doubt. I took the initiative to offer advice to the user, who will become a project for me in the medium term. Note that the blocking administrator never sought any support, it was solely the idea of himself. In contrast, I had the benefit of reading others comments, some of which were not in complete support of the original blocking. Therefore, the original blocking was made (or seems to be made) unilaterally, the reduction in duration was made in consideration of others' comments and messages were left with the appropriate people (with consideration with the "retired" sign). If I had actually considered immediate unblock (which I didn't), I would have gone through different steps. Archtransit (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be a little more blunt than MastCell: what do you mean "I did not instigate the unblock"? You unblocked. You must be able to take responsibility for your actions. Sandstein, Mangojuice, and every other registered and unregistered editor can say whatever they like, but your actions are yours and yours alone. You unblocked an indef blocked editor, after unblock had been declined twice, without any significant discussion with anyone. Its all you, and IMO its a bad call and you're compounding that by trying to shift some of the responsibility elsewhere. Is this clear at all? KillerChihuahua 00:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• My main problem is with the "truth-in-advertising" at your RfA. You claimed you would just be using your tools to participate more at DYK. Instead, you're using them to perform lots of blocks and unblocks, with several of them being quite controversial. -- Bellwether _C 00:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is making a lot out of a minor matter. JzG seems happy with the unblock provided Archtransit will be monitoring the user's further behaviour. If the blocking admin isn't troubled by the shortening of the block, this seems to have generated ridiculous amounts of discussion. Archtransit made a couple of bad calls early on. I'm not convinced this is one of them - as with the block of the account for userpage vandalism the other day. It is with regret that I am starting to think some people are looking for Archtransit to slip up, and jumping down his throat the minute they see something that might be qualify as a bad decision. I would hope people would be more supportive, more willing to provide advice than criticism. I suspect that this is a case (like that of Matthew Hoffmann) were the blocking (and unblock declining) admin would have had difficulty persuading ArbCom that the conduct had been sufficiently severe to and down an indefinite block. Should there have been more discussion with the other admins- probably, but I think one should assume good faith that the (re)tired message on JzG's talkpage mislead Archtransit into thinking a prompt response would not be forthcoming there. Has any harm been done? Apparently not. WjBscribe 11:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's difficult to assume good faith when AT unblocked 30 minutes after the initial block, did so after two other admins had declined unblock, and clearly never even looked at Guy's contribs to see that he is, in fact, active. The fact that after the fact Guy didn't have a problem with it is beside the point. AT's unilateral actions have become a pattern, and it's become clear that he wasn't being completely forthright when he said that he just wanted the tools to help at DYK. This bothers me, as it smacks of politics as it's practiced in RL today as well: say what it takes to get what you want, then do what you want. -- Bellwether _C 12:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WJBscribe: To the best of my recollection, I never even heard of Archtransit before this. I had Fairchoice's page watchlisted. I am here because of the one event only. KillerChihuahua 14:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Main Page images

Please protect (or upload and protect if Commons) any images that you put on the Main Page. Image:Wachendorff cornelis ketel.jpg was not uploaded and therefore was not protected. --- RockMFR 00:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the main page has cascading protection on images, you only need to upload from Commons to here and the add the {{c-uploaded}} template. You should add the template {{mprotected}} on images that are already here. Royalbroil 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to make sure you upload the image from Commons (save the file to your computer and then upload it here with the same filename using Special:Upload). You again placed an unprotected image on the main page. --- RockMFR 22:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

a friendly reminder about DYK

Hello, Archtransit. You're now an admin. Congrats! Glad to have one more dedicated worker at DYK. :-)

I thought I could remind you, when updating DYK, to check the layout on MainPage. Putting in just 5 bulleted items when ITN and SA/OTD are a bit long, as you did in this update, makes a 'hole' on MainPage, at least on my monitor, between DYK and POTD. Also, having more than half of the DYK items about things related to one country (in this case, USA) is often frowned upon. No one has complained yet, but complaints about poor layouts and US-centrism on MainPage are often found on Talk: Main Page. I thought I could let you know. I've filled up the blank space with a 6th DYK bullet and shortened ITN & SA/OTD. So, things are okay now. Don't worry about it now. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at me now

Dana Telsey (new article) and Anna Loginova (new article that I expanded) and a more focused approach to the film article. Fairchoice (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm glad you're doing well, and keep up the good work. But the issue is how AT proceeded in unblocking you. He needed to discuss the action first, not unblock unilaterally. That you're doing good work now is a happy biproduct of a mishandled unblock. It worked out well, but with AT's brief history as an admin, we can't simply say, "the ends justify the means." -- Bellwether _C 01:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

David Saks

These questions have already been discussed ad nauseam. See the archives of the Memphis talk page, for example, or the David Saks AFD. There is a clear consensus against including any information about David Saks on Misplaced Pages. The user, who is undoubtedly David Saks, was using multiple socks to continue to add information about David Saks to Misplaced Pages. The user made a legal threat toward me over a year ago (2 years now? i don't remember). The user was indef blocked (not by me), but even now continues to attempt to add information on David Saks to Misplaced Pages in violation of the block and consensus. So, yes, striking out comments (made by an indef blocked user in violation of that block, I might add) is the answer. · jersyko talk 21:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. Sorry to jump into the conversation, but I have noticed recently that the issue of David Saks has resurfaced even though the issue has been fully discussed and resolved in August of 2006. I thought you would be interested in some of the more relevant diffs, but you can find most of the information in the talk page's archive. User Scribner found that the city of Memphis does not have any official songs according to the Mayor of Memphis' office and the City of Memphis library information. That same user also followed up on the issue with the city and found some interesting developments, including that there is no official song of Memphis and that the musician in question (David Saks) had forcefully but unsuccessfully attempted to get the city to recognize his song as the official song of Memphis. Other users, such as Vary and Saxifrage, agreed with the findings here and here. Also of note, the article on David Saks was deleted. During that time, the user pushing for the information on David Saks was indefinitely blocked for making a real-life threat. Since then, numerous sock puppets have edited the Memphis article placing the same information on David Saks, and there is no question that the current user now involved is also a sock puppet. All of the accounts are single purpose accounts, with the obvious focus of claiming notability for David Saks. I hope this information would be useful to you. - Dozenist talk 19:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree, Archtransit. As I said on Jersyko's talk page, this is a matter for SSP, not dispute resolution. The matter's been discussed and completely settled, and I'm afraid no good can come of encouraging the editor to revisit the same old claims and accusations. -- Vary | Talk 19:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The information on Memphis songs is useful and something that I will read in detail in a moment. That's the most constructive thing for Misplaced Pages. The most important question is if the song information belongs in Misplaced Pages. If it is notable, then the issue of sockpuppetry is just an attempt to insert valid information on Misplaced Pages and a method (not a completely permitted method) of defending against vicious attacks by others on him. If it is not notable, then the material shouldn't be in Misplaced Pages. Archtransit (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Vary edit says there is an official song of 1991. So there is some semblance of fact. Whether it's notable or whether there's a reliable source is yet to be determined. I am happy to comment on sources but I don't intend to search for it much or at all. Let's try to be civil and respectful of each other, including Mr. Saks. He may feel better if there is a reason that something is not included because of content criteria, not because of name calling and sock accusation. Archtransit (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You said "Whether it's notable or whether there's a reliable source is yet to be determined". Have you read the relevant talk page archives? This isn't an open question, consensus is clearly weighted against notability. If you have something to add, feel free to restart the discussion by posting at the Memphis talk page. Please note, however, that the consensus exists and that the discussion already took place. I'm not really sure what else there is to say. · jersyko talk 22:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I should have said "yet to be determined by me". I should also say that I doubt I will make such determination. (I have no desire to join the Memphis Police Department-Misplaced Pages Police Station or the prosecutor's office of Memphis.) You have page protected the Memphis talk page so a valid discusssion is impossible. These are just observations and not a request for you to do something. Archtransit (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the DYK

Thanks for the DYK earlier today on the Utah Olympic Park bobsleigh/luge/skeleton track. i really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That is the official title of the track according to the Utah Olympic Park's official website so I will not be able to rename it. Sorry. Chris (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Recall

Archtransit, after those difficulties of your first few days in adminship, I took your talkpage off my watch for a while. Now, looking again and seeing the threads from 30 January and your admin log, I am appalled to see that you are still engaging in completely erratic blocks and unblocks.

This has gone too far. I see that several people have lost their patience with you, and so have I. I'll put it bluntly now: Please stop it. You have lost the community's trust. You are no longer equipped with a valid community mandate to issue blocks or unblocks. At the very least, I want to see a binding promise by you that you will not be using your block/unblock buttons at all for the next six months at least. Failing that, please take your choice between accepting recall or Arbcom. (I know you have refused to honour recall during this time, but still, it's your choice.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are unhappy about a specific block, unblock, RFPP, AIV, or other matter, let me know. I am willing to reconsider each action with an open mind. The recall criteria is still under discussion with Cornix. However, the basic idea is there which is "tell me specifically what action you don't like and let me try to fix it."

The easy way to administrate is to follow the latest political poll. The more ethical way to administrate is to carefully consider the situation and, in some cases, to see if there are reasonable grounds to take certain action of which may be unpopular. The primary goals are to follow Misplaced Pages policies and do actions that improve Misplaced Pages content.

A case in point is user:Fairchoice. Since unblock, the user has edited well by creating and expanding new articles. Even in the controversial article, the user has focused his/her energy into the most pressing point (according to his/her opinion), which is making the article compliant with the film MOS instead of fighting over the content of the article. The easy way would be to let the user die. The selection of this particular user to unblock was made because I thought there was a better chance of success than some others that I ignored.

None of the editors that I have unblocked have been disruptive since unblock. This is because I try to carefully assess each user. I have no intention to unblock the hopeless user. By unblocking the user who then contributes productively, Misplaced Pages wins. In fact, if we had enough administrators, each administrator would watch carefully over 2-5 editors and could allow 100% of potentially productive editors to contribute instead of the current situation where we are forced to guess and end up blocking some potentially good editors simply because there isn't the patience to unblock and closely assess. Archtransit (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to weigh in, but if what you're saying is that your actions were "right," then you've missed the point entirely. People aren't asking you to "follow the latest political poll." They're asking you to take a humble, collaborative approach to adminship -- to listen to people who may be able to provide good advice and feedback. To work collaboratively rather than unilaterally. That's the concern - people seem to think that you've decided that you know better than everyone else and need not listen to feedback. Your answer seems to be "well, I do know better." Well, you know, my reaction to that is something along the line of "yikes." People have floated several ways that you could show that you're willing to listen to feedback - why not take one of them? If you think the nature of adminship should then be changed, that you have good ideas that should be implemented, you can then work with others to raise them and change things. Working together works, whereas being seen as working against others only harms your views and you in the process. Just my view. --TheOtherBob 18:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think Archtransit's response illustrates the things that concern me as a passerby. You're basically taking an ends-justify-the-means approach to some decisions that have been criticized pretty heavily. The problems are 1) it's way to early to hold User:Fairchoice up as a reformed editor, and 2) the problem is not Fairchoice per se, but a pattern of making fairly rash administrative decisions that more experienced admins would think twice about or approach differently. You also seem to be implying that your methods are grounded on a superior ethical basis, thus minimizing a fairly diverse spectrum of critical feedback as the work, presumably, of editors more concerned with "political polls". Whether it is "ethical" to unblock a disruptive user without contacting the blocking admin is, at best, debatable.

You're asking people to bring specific problems to you so that you can fix them. That sounds great. The problem is that when people have brought major problems to you, you've been resistant to listening, defensive of your original decisions, and unwilling to fix the problems. It's human nature to be defensive when criticized, particularly when you're new-ish to adminship and dealing with a learning curve. But it's definitely not helping your case here. Personally I don't think there's reason for you to be de-sysopped, but it would be nice if you would post actual criteria for recall sooner rather than at some indefinite point in the future. In fact, these really should have been up and running before you started making controversial blocks of other admins. It would go a long way if you would acknowledge rather than minimize the issues raised, and agree explicitly or implicitly to be more circumspect in your use of the tools until you get your feet wet (perhaps running things by User:WJBscribe). I think if you did that, most of this stuff would go away. MastCell 18:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit, I see that TheOtherBob, MastCell, and several others have offered you some very sound advice. As I told you some time ago, most editors here are very forgiving, but only if you admit your mistakes and make an honest effort to learn from them. Please listen to the wise comments and constructive criticism you have received here, and please change your behavior in this area of adminship duties. — Satori Son 19:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll be posting a user RfC in a few minutes. Or do you guys think there's been enough community feedback here already and we should go straight for Arbcom? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think ArbCom would be appropriate without a preceding RfC in a case like this. That was the fundamental error made in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, and it proved impossible to correct. MastCell 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to request that if a formal RfC is filed on this user's admin actions, please notify me at my talkpage. Thanks, -- Bellwether _C 20:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Here it is: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Archtransit Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And here is my advice to Archtransit on the RfC. — Satori Son 21:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit: I think you seriously need to take a long hard look at User:Archtransit/recallcriteria and get them firmed up and finalised. I suspect that it is quite likely you will be using them soon and it will go a lot better for everyone, but especially you, if you remove ambiguity before the recall starts. (this would be another piece of advice from someone else... I hope you take it.) ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Lar, I think recall will be moot shortly. He has responded so poorly at the RfC, that I can not see how this won't end up at Arbcom very shortly. Bellwether _C 16:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd MUCH rather it didn't, because Archtransit honored his pledge and the community dealt with the matter. So I would ask those who are thinking of going straight to ArbCom to wait a bit... ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • See also Ryan's offer of mentorship... another reason not to rush to RfAr... innovative community driven solutions are best, if they work. ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• I support Ryan's offer, but feel it needs to be a bit more restrictive, given AT's seeming inability to accept even the most constructive of criticism. This leads me to believe that either a straight deadmin, or a very restrictive mentorship are the only really viable options. Bellwether _C 19:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 5 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anna Loginova, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll just ask you straight up

Are there any circumstances under which you'd voluntarily step down as an admin? What are those circumstances? Friday (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

Archtransit, I was wondering if you would be willing to enter into mentorship with me? I say this as a result of your RfC, it would seem that a large percentage of the community have lost trust in your capabilities as an administrator and this is most probably going to head to arbitration very very quickly. The problem I see it is that you are unable to see your errors, and I think mentorship would be a good idea so you can understand the mistakes you make, and learn how to correct them. I'm sorry, but the mentorship is going to have to be strict (I really do believe that unless there is a serious soloution like this, you're going to lose your bit) - I would first request that you stop using your tools altogether until we have an opportunity to go through when and where you should use each individual tool. The use of your tools would also have to be for obvious, text book cases only - no blocking long term editors, staying off controversial pages with your tools e.t.c. I hope you do agree to mentorship as sadly I believe it is the only option you have left. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Two heads are better than one in this situation and it certainly makes sense. I look forward to receiving your list of other people. One thing I will say is that if you take our advice, and start again as an admin, learning it with your mentors as you go along (i.e. before any more blocks/protections/deletions are made) then you should have no problems in the future and people will respect you and your sysop bit. What you really need to do as a matter of urgency is listen to advice and wait until you appoint your mentors before you do anything admin related. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• As a person who has been pretty outspoken about the misuse of tools by AT, I would support this solution, on the condition that all admin actions taken by AT for a set period of time (preferably 3+ months) be run past a member of this "committee." After the initial "tools probation", perhaps individual functions could be removed from the probation, adding new "non-committee-checked" tools useage every month for 6-8 months--with block/unblock being the last--until the toolbag was full again. Does this sound reasonable? Bellwether _C 18:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Too Bureaucratic, but please be assured that for a while at least, all his actions would be check through, and only non controversial actions should be made (simple VOA blocks and speedy deletions). Ryan Postlethwaite 18:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your approach to RfC and to Misplaced Pages policy

Briefly, as an administrator, when you find yourself in a situation where you're not sure what you're expected to do, you need to ask for assistance first and take action second. We have a help desk; we have an admin's noticeboard. For RfCs, we have an archive to which you can refer to get an idea of the style and format. The community expects that administrators will in general be aware of their own limits, and that those admins will seek assistance when they need it—not in the messy aftermath.

An RfC is supposed to be exactly that: an open call for interested parties to comment on an issue. In this particular RfC, several editors have raised serious concerns about both your actions as an administrator and your responses to criticism. You are expected to present your side of the story—nothing more or less. In general you should share your reasoning for each action that's been brought up, and your thoughts (then and now) on how each situation was handled. You're free to disagree with some – or any – of the points raised. There is room for polite, evidence-driven (use diffs) difference of opinion. Where you agree that you have erred, describe any lessons you've learned, and changes you've made to your approach as a result.

As an aside, I don't even know what to make of your thread on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed unblock of SPA vandal. At best, it shows a lack of understanding of how blocks work (once a block expires, there's nothing to unblock); at worst it suggests forum shopping or just plain WP:POINT. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination

On 6 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dana Telsey, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! Ruhrfisch _><>° 19:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Confusing post to my talk

I'm not quite certain as to the intent of your post at my talkpage, but before I can consider this matter even temporarily resolved, I would need to see what the terms of mentorship that you've agreed to are, and what the ramifications should you revert to old habits (acting before consulting being the worst one) will be. Your post at my talkpage was quite confusing, and less than cogent. Could you clarify the above points, before I consider what my take on it might be? Thanks, Bellwether _C 21:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Your communications at Ecoleman's talkpage regarding his 24hr 3RR block are very disturbing. They show a clear misunderstanding of Wikipolicy. 3RR applies to everyone, even city officials. That you took his side in his rants against his block gives me great pause in even supporting the "mentorship" that Ryan and Riana are offering. You simply have to educate yourself in policies regarding blocking and unblocking, and even in the fact that Misplaced Pages doesn't need to treat city officials who violate our policies any differently than anyone else, and we do not need to court relationships with these people. If they edit productively, fine. If they don't, they are blocked. Period. Bellwether _C 00:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

He now has a much better understanding of Misplaced Pages. I believe he is grateful for the dialogue that I had with him by e-mail. Did I "take his side"? I am a proponent of harmony and understanding in Misplaced Pages so I took everyone's side, not just his. I never asked anyone to unblock him. I did not unblock him myself. I followed WP:BITE. I believe he is no longer angry. Archtransit (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Michalowski - many thanks for your notice of this reaching the DYK main page location! Kind of you to let me know. Eebahgum (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

SSP close

Thank you. Rudget. 17:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your RfC

There's no secret nogatiations here about who would be your mentors. I've proposed me and Riana to be your mentors (as I've said in a couple of emails to you). I really think the best thing you can do is just go and state that you accept the terms of the mentorship as they have been put on the RfC - that's all you need to say, it's not the place to start deliberating about the whole thing. Best regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 19:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not negotiations, but some very confidential advice. For example, I mentioned a user who name starts with R (not Ryan or Riana) and you made some very unflattering comments about R. Archtransit (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC) (not Rudget, either) Archtransit (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The point isn't about the list, the fact of the matter is that me and Riana have been nominated to mentor you and the community has so far accepted this. I've told you all about me and Riana in emails and I thought this was how we were going to run the mentorship. On a slightly different not, please please stop editing the RfC for a short while - Your comments are making little sense and I don't think you get what people are saying now - it's not doing you any favours at the minute. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Archtransit, I am a little confused about your reticence to just directly accept the terms of the mentorship. Ultimately this would be a far easier path than the alternative, and I hope you understand this. I'm not sure what private information you're talking about here - I'm assuming you suggested someone else to mentor you and Ryan disagreed with this - but this doesn't sound particularly sensitive or controversial, and perhaps it's better to leave it be in what is already a charged situation. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing comments

You really have to stop removing replied-to comments. It destroys the continuity of the threaded discussion. I've restored it. Feel free to strike it, but please refrain from removing it again. There's nothing "sensitive" about the content of that portion of your post. Bellwether _C 19:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary accuracy

Further to the comments above, I'm rather concerned about oversighted information reinserted by Bellwhether as an edit summary. The information was neither deleted nor oversighted, it was simply removed by you as can be seen in this diff. Such an erroneous edit summary could generate considerable problems, if I saw this in an RC feed or watchlist, I might (probably would) seriously think about warning and/or blocking a user if an admin suggested that they were reinserting material that had been oversighted. Hopefully you will not make similar errors in future, as they may have completely unintended consequences. Nick (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong word. Archtransit (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You are removing replied-to comments that are neither secret, nor controversial. Please stop. Bellwether _C 20:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC comments

I'd like to run through some points of your RfC, and the consensus of the community that we can get from it so far;

1. Communication - the community doesn't feel you communicate well enough. When we disagree with an admin action, we should always discuss it with the admin we disagree with. Give your side of the story and offer advice how to proceed. If this doesn't come to a satisfactory conclusion then there's other venues you should go to before overturning the decision. the administrators' noticeboard is an ideal place to get reviews of other admin actions. You should almost never unilaterally turn over another admins decision without discussing it with the admin, and other adminsintrators in appropriate venues where a large audience are likely to see it.
2. Unblocking - we generally unblock users because their block is no longer seen as protective to the encyclopeda. You have unblocked a few disruptive users (such as vandalism/spam only accounts) without proper communication (see above). If a user has no constructive edits, we don't generally unblock them.
3. Blocking - blocks are preventative. When you blocked Jehochman, it was purely as a punishment because you didn't like the fact that he made a note in someones block log. You should have taken this to an admin noticeboard for discussion. Remember, we only block accounts to stop disruption to the project, when you block someone, you need to be sure they have been warned - most times they will stop the disruptive behaviour as they've had it pointed out to them. You have also blocked users hours after they have stopped editing, and for only one edit - this is where warnings serve a better purpose.
4. Listening to the community - if users in good standing have concerns about your use of admin tools or general editing you should listen to them. If you disagree, there's plenty of venues you can use to discuss it further, but remember they are acting in good faith, and if you find you're the only one defending your actions, then you're most probably in the wrong.

That's all for now, there's other things from the Rfc, but it's a start at least. I hope you can read through my points and understand where the community is coming from when they say they have concerns. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your insights. The conclusion drawn about Jehochman is not an accurate assessment of "because you didn't like the fact ..." but continued argument is not productive. Did I unblock a vandalism/spam only account? If so, this wasn't intended. I'll ask you in the future. Sorry. Archtransit (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I accept that you didn't block Jehochman simply because you didn't like what he did - they were the wrong words to use. What I was trying to get at was the fact that it wasn't protective for the encyclopedia, it was punative. As I said in the RfC, we'll go through all those points in detail at a later date. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In related news, I've responded to your e-mail. ~ Riana ⁂ 20:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And again. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Featured Articles Boeing 747 and Poliomyelitis

Archtransit,

Poliomyelitis became a featured article in November 2007. To the best of my knowledge it did not make it to the main page. I am not one of the main contributors, although I am interested seeing the article free of vandalism since I have been personally affected by polio. User:DO11.10 (a graduate student in Immunology at National Jewish Hospital in Denver, Colorado) is the person who is primarily responsible for Poliomyelitis. This person recently became an admin. --Dan Dassow (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Mentoring/Archtransit

I've created your mentoring page which can be found in the above link. As this is now the official start of your mentoring, I must request that you stop using your tools immediately (except for updating DYK). This includes the block, delete and protection buttons. We will work through each individually and when you understand the policies governing them, I will then allow you to use each one, step by step. Your first policy is the protection policy - please read this before you do anything else. I have created User:Ryan_Postlethwaite/Mentoring/Archtransit/Protection with more information about when to use each type of protection. When you have thoroughly reviewed the page and policy, please complete the tasks section at the bottom and then we can discuss each one in turn. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask at any point in time. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've created the deletion subpage and it would be good if you'd have a go when you have the chance! It's here. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 12:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User: Fairchoice

Is begging to be unblocked. I guess he was blocked again? He promises to be good. I am not sure. What do you think and suggest?--Filll (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Block of user

I was not trying to censor or abuse another user, but perhaps the block was too long, or I should have given a final warning first. In any case, I noted that at WP:ANI#Requesting block review for User:Decoratrix, and any possibly remote conflict, with diffs. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to abuse another user....good! We don't want to be bitey. Archtransit (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I make a mistake. I apologized in three places and welcomed the user at User talk:Decoratrix. Last November, I did a similar thing. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Small concern

Hello Archtransit, I stumbled across a couple of post from you today and I'm a little concerned about your attitude on some of them. Here you start talking about admin abuse, because someone get blocked for a BLP violation - even if it did only require a warnings, it was a mistake, not deliberate abuse. You should try and assume good faith with your colleagues. Another comment which concerned me was this edit to Soctrates talk page. He had just got caused abusing sock puppets, yet you offer to defend him on the basis of his location - that's really not how we operate here, and I think this shows a larger tendency go to extreme lengths to help disruptive users. I would suggest you spend more time commenting on users who have been shown to excellent work here and leave dealing with all disruptive users to other admins at this period. It wouldn't go a miss for you to stop commenting on blocks completely until me and Riana go through blocks with you. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it came off the wrong way. If someone is being blocked for writing a comment about an American politician, this is not right. However, the administrator said this was not the intent. I accept this explanation. I didn't think it was a BLP violation. It had something to do with the politician missing votes and had a reference.

As far as the Snocrates incident, this is terrible. However, I see that the Pitt Island article needs much improvement and has only one picture. This is an area where the user can contribute a lot. Note that I did not say that such contributions would offset bad behaviour. I see that there is a proposal for block for 1 week. If he starts contributing wisely and helps the Pitt Island article (which few are experts but he could be since he lives there now), this would be evidence to support the 1 week block and not some longer duration that others may propose in the current discussion. This pragmatic approach helps Misplaced Pages. Any disruption that Snocrates has done is in the past and has been fixed. If he is encouraged to edit constructively, he could help an article that needs help. WP benefits. So a few encouraging words now actually helps WP even though the popular thing to do would be to beat and kick Snocrates' body. I will take your advice and limit comments! Archtransit (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of your tools

One of the major points about your mentorship was that you would stop using your tools, and only start to use them again when me or Riana give the say so to do it. I think I made this point clear. So could you explain what this is all about? Your unblocks have been causing the greatest concern to the community, and you chose to do one whne specifically asked not to. I'm disapointed because you have mine and Riana's intergrity riding on your back, so every time you do something bad like this, it makes me and Riana look incompetent. This discussion you started on AN is not adequate for a consensus to unblock - you didn't even mention the users name. I now must reiterate - do not use any more of your tools, for whatever reason - we need to sort out the issues first. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that this was a "one strike" final chance for AT, after which either a voluntary resignation, or an arbcom case would follow. Was this a misapprehension on my part? Bellwether _C 15:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• If he had any inclination to actually be recallable, surely he would have already done it by now. By the same token, I doubt he intends to bring himself to Arbcom. I suspect this will only go further if some third party brings it to Arbcom. Archtransit, in the meantime are you going to stay listed as being open to recall? It's rather misleading; you may want to fix it. Friday (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I said I would view it very seriously if he were to use the tools when he's been told not to, and I still do. This is a last chance for him now - I'll take it to ArbCom myself if he steps outside the terms of the mentorship again. Seriously Archtransit - take the advice I'm trying to give you. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I take it to ANI. The RFC is not closed yet so mentorship is a voluntary measure with no formal terms that can be violated. A mentorship as a result of a RFC or ArbCom is a different matter. It's like being adopted. Everything is voluntary AND done in the spirit of cooperation. I don't want to embarass you further so I'll listen to you. On the other hand, those who jump on your back are not being polite or AGF type Wikipedians.

Friday, as far as recall, ask Cornix what is taking so long for his suggestions to recall standards to reduce drama or admins being bold. There was a commitment to listen to his recall concerns which resulting in his changing his opposition to the RFA. Archtransit (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The RfC is closed with the respect to mentorship - it's been accepted by the community and it looks as though this is the thing holding you back from arbitration at the minute, so it is a formal mentorship. On a happier note, I'm going to chat with Riana about your protection answers, I think they show a good understanding of the protection policy so I expect shortly it would be ok for you to use the protect button - but I'll keep you posted. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Archtransit, the only reason that you're not before ArbCom right now is that there was a perception among the participants at your RfC that Ryan and Riana weregoing to be mentoring you, and that you wouldn't use your tools until you had been cleared by your mentors. Comments like "The RFC is not closed yet so mentorship is a voluntary measure with no formal terms that can be violated" are going to be read as wikilawyering. You were well aware that the community had expressed serious concerns over your use of (un)blocking, and that one of the key purposes of the mentorship arrangement was to improve your handling of (un)blocks. Diving right back into (un)blocks without engaging in any sort of clear discussion...well, what on earth were you thinking? You apparently denied an unblock request, started a WP:AN thread that didn't name the user in question, and then declared that a vague and noncommittal discussion represented 'consensus' to unblock. Ryan's bending over backwards for you; please stop making him look foolish for trusting you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My explanation to Ryan is between him and me. Since you are peeping through the keyhole, you'll note that I'm sorry to him and don't want him to have egg on his face. Do you want to block that user? If so, I will not object. Archtransit (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Archtransit, if you intend your correspondence to be "between" you and someone else, don't post it on a public, GFDL-licensed wiki. Your correspondence on Misplaced Pages is for the whole world to read, vet, and, yes, comment on, with limited exceptions. If you don't want people "peeping through the keyhole", use e-mail. - Revolving Bugbear 18:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm sorry, did I just read that right? You think your mentorship is voluntary and you don't won't to embarrass Ryan any further? Holy Cow! You sir (ma'am?), are a whole load of unbelievable. Ryan may indeed be embarrassed, but but not for the reasons you think. No eggs, R. Baley (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Guys, can we just take a step back for a second please? Archtransit has actually prepared some really good answers to questions about protection that I set him and I think he's almost ready for to start using the protection button again. Let's just continue with the mentorship and see what happens. I personally think he's taken quite a few steps forward, and a small step backwards - but the overall improvement is positive. That being said, this is still a serious warning to Archtransit about overstepping the mentorsip in the future, but let's try and move on for now. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There's also been some secret communication (lessons) about deletion and blocking, too. No peeping through the keyholes...anyway, it's been by e-mail. Archtransit (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

There's been a lot of concerns raised here over your use of tools, and general attitude towards admin actions. I've seen a lot of comments that quite frankly, I can only describe as strange. Despite the concerns brought up in the RfC by very respected members of the community, including myself in the mentorship, you've disregarded these completely and I really have to say I'm not sure I can see you changing your actions. If mentorship is going to work, there needs to be some serious improvement, and your attitude needs to change from the current "let's find someone who is blocked to turn them into a martyr at the expense of the blocking admin" - this isn't how we work. Disruptive users get blocked - we don't try and help them, we certainly don't call good faith administrators "Nazi's" because they're helping to protect the encyclopedia. When a concern is raised, we don't dismiss them as trolling, we strive to address the concerns alter our behaviour accordingly. Lastly, we assume good faith that what our collegues are doing is to help the encyclopedia. You need to work on some fundamental aspects of how an online collaberative community works, and you also need to consider whether this mentorship is going anywhere, especially when you're seemingly unable to listen when people try and give you advice - I hope this gives something for you to contemplate. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)