Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Revolving Bugbear (talk | contribs) at 18:50, 23 January 2008 (→please explain: tweak). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)

User:Weasdog

Has been restored - must have read before/after in list as the sock, not this one. SkierRMH (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year! Keep up the good work with DYK management. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Update

I have most of the aircraft article on my watchlist, its great to see all your activity and input!

One article i started to overhault was Fairchild-Dornier 728 family - is a set of big ish diffs.

Would be good to improve that further...

And also, Lockheed L-1011...

Dont really know what to do with them.. I get more involved with maintenance typ things...

On a side note, have you thought about trying out AutoWikiBrowser.. I think i've mentioned it before, but you'll certainly meet the edit count criteria if you wanted access..

—Reedy Boy 20:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

DYK is often late. Another adminstrator who is interested in DYK would help. Would you like to be that new administrator? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

In my opinion you are ready. Were your RfA not to succeed it would probably be because people wanted you to have a little more experience in certain areas - a few more vandal reports, comments in a few more deletion discussions etc. But I think you've demonstrated in the contributions you have made in those areas that you understand the relevant policies. I think you'd make a good admin now and would encourage you to accept the nomination I've written. If it doesn't work out it's no bar to you asking again later but it would be silly for more time to pass with you not being able to complete those DYK updates if there's a strong chance (which I believe there is) that you could pass RfA now. The choice is ultimately yours though. If you do want to run, you need to accept the nomination, answer the option questions and list it at WP:RFA. WjBscribe 05:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. Wasnt expecting to see it come about so quickly, but you're certainly a prime candidate :) —Reedy Boy 18:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll do some "poking" for you ;) —Reedy Boy 18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit, I apologise for any ill feeling I may have caused you in your RFA. I see that it'll pass anyway, but I still felt it necessary to voice my opinion, so to speak. I'm sure you'll be a great administrator, and I do wish strongly that you prove me wrong. The very best of luck, Rt. 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you, Rt, have been so quick to apologise if it hadn't looked like Archtransit's RfA might pass? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude once more. — I don't understand. Rt. 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a saying "don't kick a gift horse in the mouth". The point was made, I'll try to improve, neutral was withdrawn. I have no ill-will towards Rudget (Rt). Archtransit (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest though, for the sake of the general reader, how many !votes is the withdrawal of a neutral worth? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Recall

A real recall mechanism would require a great deal of discussion and consensus-building, it would take some time to come up with something usebale. This is not personal against you, at all, and please don't think it is. After all of the angst surrounding the recall of User:Mercury, I even opposed his RfA, although I thought he got a royal shaft out of the whole deal. I'm just waging a one-man campaign and probably crying in the wilderness, but the process needs to be codified. Corvus cornix_talk 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me think about it, and I'll get back to you. Corvus cornix_talk 22:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, you are the only one.  :) And I appreciate that. I will get back to you, I just need to organize my thinking on the subject and put something down on ... em, electrons. Corvus cornix_talk 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What you need to do is to think about whether you're opposing Archtransit's RfA, or a process that you don't agreee with. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish there were some way to come up with some objective standards, but I don't see how that would be possible. I'm still thinking. Probably won't get be able to come up with anything till sometime Sunday. Corvus cornix_talk 21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah, you're probably right about that. Maybe a list of:"did this admin do any of these things"? I meant point to something and say, this admin did this, this and this, those are ogjective standards that he/she should be recalled for. But it can't be just a one-time thing, it would have to be a pattern. And then there still would need to be special cases for some sort of egregious behavior like blocking admins they're in disagreement with, or deleting important pages. Corvus cornix_talk 21:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my ideas are still gestating, I'll put something together by Sunday, hopefully. Corvus cornix_talk 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I haven't forgotten this discussion. I just haven't had time to sit down somewhere in isolation and think this through. Corvus cornix_talk 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Would you give out the credits for this DYK round, please? Adminship is not needed. I did it several times before I became one. Royalbroil 16:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do. I've done it before. Archtransit (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I already did it. I thought that you weren't active. Royalbroil 16:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

F-4 Phantom II

FYI, I consider ANY unwanted changes to the userspace with my name (since I can't say "my userspace") to be vandalism. Vandlism is against WIkipedia POLICY - it's not a guideline, so how did I bereka my own rules?? Idiot. I know we didn't start off on the right foot today, but I did aplogize for it. Yet you insisted on redacting my userspace, like I was a common vandal, wtihout even the courtesy to appraoch me first liek a real adult would. If the wiki-break notice is a personal attack on my paer, then I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. I've had it today with people protecting the real vandals and abusers, then going after me like I'm worse than the vandals. Well, I've had it with idoits like you. And you really are stupid for nominating the largest airlines list. THere, now THAT was a REAL personal attack. GO get me blocked if you wish, but I'm gone from WIkipedia anyway. THought I may come back as an IP, since they get more respect than regular users from the likes of morons like you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.4.227.155 (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange! Same message posted to several users. I don't remember changing anyone's user page. Archtransit (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

January Newsletter, Issue IV

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue IV - January 2008 Got any suggestions? - Add them here Member news Happy New Year to all our Greater Manchester Wikipedians! The project now has 34 members. 5 new participants enrolled last month, they can be viewed here. On behalf of the team I hope they have prosperous and enjoyable usership and wish them well with their forthcoming work! User:Archtransit and User:Rudget, both part of our team, are current candidates for adminship (see here for Archtransit and here for Rudget). We wish them luck with this persuit and hope they will become our latest project participants with admin status! Greater Manchester Article News Since our last newsletter delivered by User:Rudget on 03 December 2007, our teamship has continued to bear fruit in the form of obtaining featured article status for Chat Moss (nom). User:Malleus Fatuarum has been heavily involved with this article and we thank him for his efforts! It's a great addition to our FA family! In addition to Chat Moss, Altrincham (nom) is a current featured article candidate, whilst Trafford is a recent good article candidate. Simillarly, the Portal:North West England is now officially a featured portal. User:Rudget has been overwhelmingly involved with this portal and he too is hereby thanked on behalf of the project for his continued contributions to this page and many others. Following a title change this month (from city-wide to county-wide per this discussion) Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester has been one of the project's successes, albeit unofficially, with good collaboration and rapid rates of development. It is hoped by several users that this become a featured list in the short term. If you think you can help with images, information or just filling in the dead links, please feel free to join in! Simillar articles to undergo large transformation are List of churches in Greater Manchester, Kersal Moor and List of railway stations in Manchester, all of which are now in good shape. Current Debates There have been a number of debates this month, some of which with a high level of potential impact for the project and its members. Article assessment for the project became a point of contention when around 1400 articles were tagged by a bot. Most of these artcles were on "minor" association football players. The consensus was that in our state of around 30 participants and as a predominatly geography based project, most of these articles should be untagged, at very least for the time being. Of our 1403 articles now tagged however, only (?) 85% are assessed - a drop of 15%! Other debates have included the notability and verifiability of Commonwealth Black Pudding Throwing Championships and its mention on the Ramsbottom article. Whilst on Shaw and Crompton, one of our featured articles, questions have been raised as to what constitutes a "town". If you have any veiws on these matters, please feel free to share them at the project talk page. Perhaps one of the most notable debates this month was the possibility of... scrapping the project newsletter! User:Rudget has written the last three editions (that's all of them!) and has decided that he'd like to pass on the responsibility. It has been proposed that a noticeboard system be introduced to highlight new issues in a near(!)-realtime fashion. I User:Jza84 am writing what could now be the last GM newsletter for a while. If you're a member of the team, but aren't closely involved with the project, then we'd love to hear from you at WT:GM with your views on which system of communication is the right way forwards (if any/both!). Monthly Challenges As was stated in last months newsletter, the Greater Manchester remains a key article for the project, and one which has been identified as urgent in our quest for Featured Article status. Sadly, for all our other successes, Greater Manchester has changed little since this time last year] (!) and is still an article requiring expansion and development. The new WP:UKCOUNTIES guide may provide new ways in which to channel our efforts. Although we endevour to have good article status even for our suburbs and hamlets, other articles specifically identified as needing development towards FA include Salford, Stretford and Altrincham. Many of our most crucial articles about our largest towns are still in poor condition: Rochdale, Bury, Prestwich, Bolton, and Wigan are of "start class" standard - much lower than we should have. If you feel you can help, please be bold and try to improve these. One final challenge for this month is for all those with new digial cameras for Christmas, or even digial images stored away on a disc!... many of our place articles are still without a single photograph, and www.geograph.org.uk is running low on quality images. Even those with photographs often have a low quality photograph of the local church. MORE ARE NEEDED! Especially townscapes! If you think you can help, a barnstar is up for grabs for best picture added in the next month or so! We're always looking for potential new project members and ways for greater communication, collaboration and participation. WP:GM has a strong core of users, but would like to have more input from a wider user-base. If you can think of ways to improve our ways of working, please feel free to mention them at WT:GM. Simillarly, if you notice a new or unapproached user who is producing sound work related to Greater Manchester and its consituent parts, please don't forget to ask them if they'd like to join us, either in your own hand, or by adding {{Welcome WPGM}} to their talk page. Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome! Created by Jza84 based on a template by Rudget | Single-Page View

RfA

(36/1/0) - Looking good :)

—Reedy Boy 13:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But you got 47/0/0! Archtransit (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol. 47 support was low.. If it had been much lower, it probably wouldnt have passed due to the low count! You'll get more supports, im pretty sure! If you want to see a decent RfA - Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Phaedriel 2, (271/6/5) —Reedy Boy 18:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• No problem. All the best in your RfA. And looking forward to reading your great writing on Aircraft articles. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You're beating me - 50 support and 1 neutral :) —Reedy Boy 22:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit Summary...

May make a useful read/view - 410 Boeing 747 Edits, nice ;)

—Reedy Boy 18:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Reeve Aleutian Airways

Thanks for your message. None of the photos used are of Reeve Aleutian aircraft, but are of the types of aircraft used. The most relevant on is the S-43, which may even be of one of the aircraft sold to PenAir, which is why it is at the top of the article. Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Err...

Did you mean talk page and not userpage?

)

—Reedy Boy 23:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

I really appreciated you pitching on the DYK update this morning! It's a time-consuming job that goes faster when two keyboards are involved. Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A subtle way of canvassing, to be sure, but I think you deserve it all the same. (Better than a barnstar, I guess). Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put a RFA notice on my user talk page to avoid canvassing. Putting a RFA notice on one's user page is permitted.Archtransit (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

On DYK

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but isn't the point of DYK to show new articles on the main page, rather than just trying to clear a backlog? With how bad it's getting, I'm no longer sure on this matter. If you could provide your opinion at WT:DYK, that would help, since while I'm iffy on you just expiring days without looking for good hooks, it may not be a bad thing and there may be a good rationale behind it. Wizardman 23:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine. I used to be a suppoerter of letting them all in, but with how bad backlogs have gotten I don't really mind just pushing some back. One last thing though, when you add in the credits to T:DYK/N, please use the {{user|Jimbo Wales}} template on the names, and wikilink the articles next to them. It makes it so much easier to do the credits when it's like that. We all know DYK's hard enough as it is :) Wizardman 23:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. The last two were good at least, I'll go leave the note on who did the first ones then. Wizardman 23:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA

I've changed my oppose to a neutral. Corvus cornix_talk 21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeopardy: Unfortunately, I came in second. That was when you didn't get to keep any money you won if you didn't win. I got a trip to Puerto Vallarta. Corvus cornix_talk 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback..

You're gonna get it when you become an admin.. But i was bored, so gave you it here ;)

—Reedy Boy 23:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You've done it again, lol. Left a talk message on my userpage! Nah, you'll be a good admin. Just semi-protect your userpage if IP's start blanking it ;) —Reedy Boy 00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, you're ok, i wont this time ;). I need my userpage redesigning... Hmm —Reedy Boy 00:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, you will be blocked from editing. You will stop putting message on Reedy Boy's userpage. Stop being an idiot and look carefully. It only looks like a user talk page. Archtransit (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha! :D. I think thats supposed to be subst'd ;). User:Majorly said he will redesign my user page for me :) —Reedy Boy 00:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You could avoid that by always using the "+" button to add new sections to talk page. Reedy's user page doesn't have a "+" button :) --kingboyk (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary account

Hi there. Is the Wiktionary wikt:user:Archtransit you? Some of its edits lead me to suspect it is an impostor. Thanks. 70.176.213.78 (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Imposter. I have never even looked at Wiktionary. Archtransit (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User page

"This image is in the public domain and is allowed on user pages. Fair use images are not allowed, I believe." As an admin hopeful you might want to appear a little more authoratative than that on a core policy ;) I'll assume that's an old comment so won't mention it on the RFA :) but I do hope you look the policy up and remove any "I believe"s. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

congratulations

Template:Captioned

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Misplaced Pages:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Ace, congrats Archtransit :). You beat my score ;). Btw, whats your first name? —Reedy Boy 16:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

PS, Congrats on the RfA. --Strothra (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. That all went rather well :-). You may find the practice exercises at the new admin school useful. If you ever have any questions about using your new buttons, feel free to get in touch. Best wishes, WjBscribe 18:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Obadiah Newcomb Bush

Asking you to reconsider your review of this AfD before I put it up for deletion review. I know it was problematic since the nom bundled multiple articles into one AfD. Anyway, the discussion was cut between two articles: Obadiah and James. There are arguments that clearly show that James meets the requirements for WP:BIO. However, there seems to be little substantive argument to keep Obadiah's article and yet plenty of credible questions concerning the subject's adherence to notability guidelines. --Strothra (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a peer review of Boeing 737

Hello! Based on your areas of interest, we believe that you may be interested in participating in the peer review of Boeing 737. Comments from reviewers are needed over the next few weeks to assist editors in improving the article; we would be very grateful if you could spare some of your time to help out! If you would prefer not to receive such invitations in the future, please leave a message on this page, and we won't trouble you again. If you have any questions about the review process, you can ask them here. Thanks! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Perferct! I've done some major rewriting in the last month, creating Boeing 737 Classic in the process, but of course there's always more to be done. Thanks again.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: First DYK update

Alright then. First off, hold up. No need to remove the hooks from the nest update page, you can just copy-paste. Plus, it's still 15 minutes or so until then and I was going to add in two more to load up the page. I'll just undo your revision and add in my two, then you can add the hooks on the main page :) Wizardman 19:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I could streamline the process. However, it does appear on the main page. I thought it would take longer so I started a bit early. Archtransit (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I'll just add in the two now then, no biggie. The transclusion itself is arguably the easiest part of the DYK process, almost ironically. Wizardman 19:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out the clock part. Archtransit (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

done. Wizardman, besides issuing the credits to people, is everything done correctly? Archtransit (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The clock and hooks are good. As for the image, it has to be uploaded to the english wikipedia if it's on commons, and then protected, then with the c-uploaded template added. Unfortunately, just protecting the page if it's on commons doesn't work. Wizardman 19:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I was gonna go the update anyway, so you actually saved me time. Just make sure you handle the credits and clearing the template, then you're done. Wizardman 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

1 done, the rest left. Thanks. Archtransit (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I can handle handing out the credits, don't worry about it :) Wizardman 19:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on your succesful bid for adminship. Corvus cornix_talk 21:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I ditto this. Use your tools wisely :-) 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:40, 10 January 2008 (GMT)

Thanks!

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Probable aircraft image source

First of all, congratulations on your new adminship! I notice that you've already loaded some DYK updates. Note that you don't have to protect an image on the main page since cascading protection to the main page is automatically enabled. I tested it several times before I felt comfortable. You can test this by not protecting an image before promoting it. Then after you promote it, see if you can edit it. You'll get the typical administrator warning at the top of the screen, so you know that it's protected. You probably already know all of this, so my apology in advance if this insults your intelligence.

I've been bugging a few people (1) to find someone who's been around Misplaced Pages a while who would like to mark some aircraft images from a flickr contributor named Tom who I have developed a friendship with. I started working with Tom when he agreed to license his very complete collection of drag racing photographs using Creative Commons ShareAlike Attribution so that Misplaced Pages can use them. I have just been marking those particular images that are helpful to Misplaced Pages. He then uploaded a series of Formula One images, which he agreed to license too. I had a Formula One expert mark and upload those images. Now he has uploaded a series of airplanes, so I am contacting you to see if you or someone at WP:AIRCRAFT would be interested in this reviewing this group of photographs (the set). I will start a dialog with Tom once the uploader is determined. He has been very good to work with and is extremely happy that Misplaced Pages finds these images useful and good enough for a large well-known project. Are you interested in being that person to work with him to accomplish these uploads? Royalbroil 19:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

At a quick glance, if you're watching this Royalbroil... Some look rather useful. BTW, i presume your uploading the others to Commons - due to the decent license? —Reedy Boy 20:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that some would be useful. The question is which ones. I'm not familiar with aircraft and aviation articles, so I'm trying to enlist a tenured well-respected aircraft/aviation specialist to make that assessment since I am not qualified. Archtransit has been working with me for a while at WP:DYK.

I have been uploading all free images to Commons for over a year. My total has to be over 1000, between my own uploads and ones accomplished with assistance from flickr upload bot. Commons is the way to go! Flickr upload bot is the best way to get flickr images to Commons. Royalbroil 20:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll study the issue tomorrow. I know more about commericial aviation and some military. The older planes and general aviation, I'm not too familiar with. Archtransit (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a message from Tom, so my response included a paragraph that a new Misplaced Pages administrator named Archtransit was going to be contacting him about the images. He responded that he's happy to help Misplaced Pages, even if it's in a small way. I replied that his help is far beyond small! Royalbroil 14:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What I was looking for was someone who is well-versed in both the current state of images in aircraft articles, and uploading images. Tom is not a Wikipedian and doesn't appear to want to be one. He is a fan of Misplaced Pages, so he is willing to change the licenses on his images to CC-by-SA if someone points out what is helpful. I assumed that you were versed in images and that you were familiar with flickr. I'll ask User:Reedy boy since he seems gung-ho. You're real busy with other things right now. Royalbroil 18:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK:Çanakkale Martyrs' Memorial,

Hi! Thanks so much indeed for your contribution. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to put the related image next to this entry? CeeGee (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Archtransit (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome!

Not a problem, glad to be of help! Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been unblocked

I was going to block the user for one or two weeks for abusive sock puppetry, but instead elected for a shorter block as a matter of leniency. I disagree with your interpretation of blocking policy in this case, and I strongly disagree with your decision to block me. Disagreements amongst administrators should be handled via friendly discussion, or if that fails, via arbitration.

My understanding of the section of blocking policy you cited is that mere warnings should not be entered in the block log, such as vandalism. This was a case of abusive sock puppetry that deserved a much longer block than the one I gave. I do not know of any rule that prohibits leniency. Jehochman 18:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now asked an uninvolved administrator to review my original block to see whether it should be reapplied for a proper length of time to comply with policy. I have also asked a checkuser and a bureaucrat to mediate the dispute between us, because I am not willing to drop the matter. Your block of me was a severe, purposeful violation of policy, whereas mine was unintentional. Per common sense, and perhaps WP:IAR, there should be nothing wrong with blocking a user for less time than what would normally be allowed. Jehochman 18:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already noted to another admin that the matter is closed and no further action taken against Jehochman. I even noted that if discussion were to have taken place, I would have lessened your block or unblocked you. Your continued fighting shows that you do not have the temperment becoming of an administrator. Please calm down. Archtransit (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Had you spoken with me about the problem, I would have said, "Oh, yes, I forgot that. Thank you for reminding me. Sorry." and that would have been the end. Instead, you escalated the dispute by blocking me, which was a sure way to ignite drama. The user clearly could have been blocked for much longer than one minute. My choice was designed to be lenient, not to humiliate. Next time I'll just block for a week since this is the way kindness has been repaid. Jehochman 18:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman

I'm sorry to say that I think you could have handled this matter better. I agree that the block of User:Congolese fufu by Jehochman was contrary to the blocking policy. In particular, its purpose was not to prevent editing by the user but to create an indelible record of the RFCU case in the user's block log.

That being said, I don't think a block of Jehochman was appropriate. I don't think you'll find anywhere in the blocking policy a comment that administrators who make a bad block should themselves be blocked. I find it difficult not to see such a block as being punitive rather than preventative, the very same problem you wanted to call Jehochman up on. Blocks should be used as a last resort, when lesser means would not be effective. In this case, I think you should have raised your issues with Jehochman's block on his talkpage. Had he not agreed that he was in the wrong, you could then have raised it at WP:ANI for further input. Ultimately the matter might have extended into a request for comment on his conduct. I find it highly unlikely there would ever have been a consensus that Jehochman would have been blocked. As a wider point, I strongly advise that when an administrator is going to make a block likely to be controversial - especially where there is no ongoing threat of disruption - they seek input from other administrators.

People are going to make mistakes, we're all human. Its better for everyone to talk about things and to agree how to move forwards, than to all start hitting each other with sticks. In this case, I could take the view that your block was outside policy and then block you as you did Jehochman. Another admin who took that view of my action would block me, etc. We would have chaos all based on the fact that sometimes people take different views of the same situation. Admin tools should be used sparingly - were blocks issued simply as punishments for violating policy, Jehochman's block of Congolese fufu would be valid ( as that user was confirmed to have engaged in misconduct). WjBscribe 18:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I find your block of Jehochman not only unreasonable, but nigh unbelieveable as well. While Jehochman's block was unintentional, yours was worse. There was no attempt at resolution, or talk. You say that his fighting words are an indication that he does not have the temperament to be an administrator? Your heavy handed, bull in a china shop approach is worse then that. I will join Jehochman in any dispute resolution, informal or formal he requests. SirFozzie (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC) striking comment through at WJBScribe's request that we discuss this out. SirFozzie (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that I failed to remember that point of policy about short blocks. My initial idea was to block for one to two weeks as is normal in cases of disruptive sock puppetry, but I saw that the user had redeeming features so I shortened the block, unfortunately too much, and chose a poor summary of the reason. I won't make that mistake again. You'll notice that I handled this quietly rather than running to ANI and screaming my head off. If we can all agree that this is silly and take home our lessons, this can be the end of it. Jehochman 18:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman never said his block was unintentional. He did push the button. Dispute resolution only prolongs the dispute. Currently there is no dispute. He has not been re-blocked. There is a danger that we are becoming a cabal if we block others for violating WP policy but look the other way if we admin violate policy. I would recommend that you cease dispute resolution. If you are looking for productive things to do, educate me by citing the official WP policy. In the mean time, I am not seeking any further discipline of Jehochman. Archtransit (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To Jehochman, your not "screaming my head off" is to be commended. Let's agree to your suggestion of "this is silly and take home our lessons, this can be the end of it." Let's get back to the business of improving WP. Archtransit (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman intentionally blocked Congolese fufu to make a record in his block. Yes, this is a policy violation. However, don't you think it would have been better to educate the user instead of blocking him? I understand how you may construe this block as preventative, because it may prevent future violations of policy, but think about it. Jehochman could have just as easily learned about his mistake through a sensible usertalk discussion. He wouldn't have made future violations. You get the same end result in both situations. However, one path leads toward a block, in which the editor cannot edit the encyclopedia, and in another, the editor has learned a valuable lesson about blocking policy and he can still edit the encyclopedia. You've said it yourself that your goal is to improve Misplaced Pages. Wouldn't the second path be more helpful to the encyclopedia? For the future, think about this situation carefully. If a matter can be handled through non-administrative channels, then I suggest you go through with it. Best, Nishkid64 (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange, but I did not get edit conflicted with this post even though I clicked "edit" before WJBscribe and Jehochman had made their comments here. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit, I disagree. We do not do the reputation of Misplaced Pages any good by the heavy handed enforcement of rules. Jehochman could have made a valid block of a reasonably lengthy time - I doubt it would have been overturned. He chose instead a token block. You rightly point out that policy does not allow for these. However, some might well defend him citing WP:IAR on the basis that this was a case when a substantive block could have been made. My point is that this could have been resolved, or explored further through discussion. But instead of pursuing that route, you went straight for the block. You might want to consider this part of the blocking policy, WP:BLOCK#Education_and_warnings - "Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behaviour conflicts with our policies and guidelines". It seems your block was carried out in the interests of appearing even handed, I'm afraid it has come across as disproportionate to the offence you saw on Jehochman's part. I don't think "whether or not we look cabalistic" is ever a consideration in whether or not to make a block - a block should be able to be objectively justified without reference to the subjective opinion of a third party. WjBscribe 19:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, no hard feelings. Please take a look at what happens when one admin blocks another: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62. If you ever run into a problem with another admin, go to WJBscribe or one of the other 'crats and ask them for advice. Remember, there is no deadline. Jehochman 19:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just now discovered this issue, and would like to express some of my feelings perhaps by way of friendly advice - take it or leave it. Misplaced Pages has over 1,500 admins, so it is inevitable that policy interpretation conflicts occur from time to time. Often indeed, I find myself thinking "how on earth can you call that a valid block?", and wishing for wider avoidance of the terrible biting. The approach I take when finding such an issue is to take it up with the admin first, usually privately, via email or IRC, and seek resolution. If this fails, or if a comment has already been made by another user, I will discuss on the user's talk page or ANI. Blocking admins is something that I'm shocked to see happen unless as a mistake or as a joke (yes, haha). I understand your concerns about cabalism, but we most also appreciate that we are all, in the eyes of a lot of outsiders, running this top-10 website, so it does a lot of good to present a united front both to avoid drama and ensure that the reputation of Misplaced Pages is not (further?) damaged.

I do feel that the tone we have seen coming from you towards J both during and after the incident is quite inappropriate for conversing with a colleague who is held in equal or greater respect as you by the community at large. What I try to do is think of the drama effect of my actions. If something isn't quite the right thing in my mind to do, but will reduce the masses of drama, I will tend to take that course of action if I can. On this note, I would strongly suggest and request that you make an apology and acknowledgment of your mistakes in this circumstance. Other admins, both new and old, will be able to learn much from such a statement, and I am certain that it will do you no end of good, if only to shut up the recallers below. Thanks, Martinp23 22:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Recall 2

Archtransit, in your recent RfA (closed 4 days ago) you declared your intent to add yourself to the category of administrators open to recall. I do not see you in this category, or a page regarding recall in your userspace. As a result, it is impossible to know whether you intend to respect your previous decision and if so based on what criteria. I would like to ask you to make this clear. 18:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am working with Cornix to come up with standards that address his concern as well as writing up recall standards. When completed, the standards will be solid. One of the standards is that I won't be able to close the recall early, like Mercury. These standards take time to write and review. Archtransit (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would alert me when your criteria are written. Based on the outcome of the above situation with Jehochman, it is likely that I will initiate the proceedings immediately at that time. 18:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would advise against that. He's only been an admin for a few days. Is there any evidence of misuse of admin tools other than that one incident? Do we not allow people a chance to learn from their mistakes? The recall of Mercury after 1 bad AfD close was the reason that I removed myself from that category. Mr.Z-man 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Lar/Accountability is the standard I used, if you'd like to take a look. It covers pretty much everything. To Avruch, can we please hold off on the Recall stuff. We're nowhere near that stage - not by a long shot - Alison 19:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. He doesn't have criteria yet anyway, and may not ultimately post them. To me, the pattern of comments and actions here demonstrate that the RfA may have been a mistake. It isn't a perfect process, and admins who make themselves available for recall are essentially opening RfA to review. A recall process doesn't automatically lead to de-adminship (generally). What bothers me more than anything is (so far as I can tell) the complete lack of recognition that he made an error here. 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The guy only ever made three blocks in his entire career. It's way too early to make that determination nor should the recall process be used as a stick with which to beat people. Let's not do that - Alison 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand that people were unhappy about the block because it was an inappropriate block? This is cause for legitimate concern, I think. I urge you to be very conservative with how you use the admin tools. Friday (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

an outside view

I was brought here by User_talk:Lar#Recall_of_Archtransit_being_suggested ... and no I don't want a bat-searchlight, thank you. I reviewed matters and hope that things are sorted now? I'll still put my oar in anyway, because that's what I do, talk.

• Archtransit ought to take the counsel he's been given to heart, it's always a good thing to respect the time and energy others spend in giving advice, they do it because they care... Some key points: 1) Be faster to talk and slower to block... talking calmly to Jehochman, and listening to him, would have sorted this all out with far less fuss 2) Indicate you understand WHY people are concerned 3) Give Jehochman a bit better apology 4) Work on your recall criteria and process asap... Misplaced Pages:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria has loads of examples, you can adapt or adopt someone elses.
• Everyone else ought to kick back and mellow out. 1) While the apology wasn't perfect, Jehochman already said bygones are bygones (remember meatball:ForgiveAndForget which always has good advice in these matters) 2) I think 4 days is a bit fast to go for a recall, really. More talking and less recalling probably would help, oddly enough

Hope that advice is of some use. If not... well, I do like to hear myself talk! :) ++Lar: t/c 23:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN

There is a thread regarding the above issue at WP:AN.

19:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My DYK nom of Capitol Offense (band)

You removed it for some reason. Where did it go? I've never nommed one before, so forgive me if this is completely clueless. -- Bellwether _C 21:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC) It's on the main page! ( http://en.wikipedia.org )Archtransit (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• How very cool!!! I've had an article I created accepted before (Elise Primavera), but off of someone else's nom, not mine. That's really cool that it made the mainpage! Thanks a ton, and sorry for my DYK cluelessness... -- Bellwether _C 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Recall again

I will, I promise, I've just been swamped. Corvus cornix_talk 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WTF?

Were you trying to do here? If you disagree with another admin's block, you talk to them about it and maybe undo it, you don't block that admin for a possible violation of the blocking policy. Indeed, the irony here is massive since what you did was so far outside WP:BLOCK it isn't funny. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Scroll up, read, view the linked pages and take a deep breath. Lets try to avoid escalating the drama. Thanks, Martinp23 23:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Newbie admin here. Let it go. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding JoshuaZ' remarks, the overriding concern was not to be accused of cabaling by looking the other way when seeing a policy violation by an admin. Won't do that again! Archtransit (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if you leave a stern message on my talk page, that's not looking the other way. Blocking is serious business and is only used as a last resort. For instance, if a newbie makes the common mistake of choosing an account name that matches their business name, while technically you can indef block, a much better course of action is to politely ask them to choose a new user name, and then come back after 7 days and see if they have done so. Blocking in that situation is unnecessary and WP:BITEy. Be creative to find other remedies instead of blocking whenever possible. My 1 minute block was an exceptional case. The user had operated sock puppets that made at least one very naughty edit that had to be oversighted, as well as multiple disruptive edits. Per AGF, I hoped they had learned their lesson, but the oversighted edit weighed heavily on my conscience, and I just had to do some sort of block so that if there ever was a repetition, the prior incident would not go unnoticed. WJBscribe is absolutely right that what I did was not a valid option (I had read the rule a few months ago, but had forgotten it). This is the sort of thing--good intentions, one-off technical violation--that Misplaced Pages doesn't make a big deal about. You'll notice that I've never done anything like this before, which is an indication that yes, this was an exception, not malice. I hope this help satisfy the observers so they stop piling on. :-D You've had enough for one day. Jehochman 00:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The world is not made up of only the two choices of 1) doing nothing, or 2) reaching for that block button. At the risk of beating a dead horse.. I don't get why people are saying "he's a new admin" as though this makes it all better. This doesn't make it better, it makes it worse. I've yet to see an admin become less bold over time- typically people go the other way. To see someone be so boldy wrong, just days after getting the tools, does not inspire confidence. Archtransit, you still don't even appear to understand why this was a bad idea- that's not such a good thing, either. I'm reminded of at least one similar case where a new admin started immediately displaying poor judgement, and that person is not an admin anymore. I don't see that this case needs to go quite that far yet, but I don't think it's so inappropriate that Archtransit is catching lots of flak over this. Friday (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I once saw an admin who reverted (technical operation: revert, practical effect:delete) a request for arbitration against him and then indef blocked the user. I was shocked to see it. By now, I've forgotten the names. Another time, I saw a discussion about codifying what an admin should not do. It was reverted and the person blocked. To the outside world, that looks like cabalism. I thought that I'd never do something like that as an admin. Even the discussion involving Jehochman and Profg. Profg is the last person I'd want to defend. His behavior is bad. However, he raises the issue of cabalism (without using the word). So that's a sensitive issue with me. I don't want to encourage cabalism. Cooperation, yes. Cabalism, no. Archtransit (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I recently wrote an essay on virtual blight. Along with the usual blighters: parasitic marketers, griefers, trolls, and predators, I added a 6th category: elitists. Elitists form cabals and cliques that make other users feel unwelcome. This can negatively affect the growth of an online community. I feel your pain when you suggest this may be happening on Misplaced Pages. The very best weapon we have to fight this sort of blight is socialization. We need to talk with people nicely to help them realize that cabalism and biting can be just as detrimental as trolling and vandalism. When fighting the later, we must be careful not to do the former. Jehochman 01:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Archtransit. Though I do not wish to extend this further, I would prefer to ask you one question. In your last comment to date on the Administrator's noticeboard (diff), you stated "It was originally done in good faith to try to observe official Misplaced Pages policy. Although I see no violation of policy by me, I do see that people are unhappy, which makes me unhappy." Do you still maintain that your block was not in violation of policy? Thanks, Iamunknown 04:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

His answer to this question is found here. 16:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit, it appears that you still feel your block of Jehochman was justified. I am dissapointed, to say the least. My suggestion is that you let this issue go as gracefully as others have. — Satori Son 16:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I reading this right??? He's blaming Keilana for part of this because of her clerking at checkuser?? That's just so wrong! :( And this FA editor created an account ostensibly to "out" her and hurt her in the middle of her RfA and what he did required oversight and this is somehow overlooked??? I'd really like to see some clarification on this in a big way, if that's okay. LIke, really - Alison 17:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is really an inaccurate characterisation because I am not blaming Keilana. All I am saying is that a chain of events is a chain. If there were different actions during the chain of events, the outcome would have been different. Archtransit (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Your prized FA editor created a sock to attack her and you blame her?? What's going on here? - Alison 17:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The chain of events didn't become a big issue until Archtransit blocked Jehochman, so I don't see that Keilana has any blame or role whatsoever. 17:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Alison should have a talk with this attacking sock which we know nothing about. E-mail the person? I don't see that there is any blame to be assigned to Keilana but he/she didn't follow the instructions. I am for more written instructions, not less. As WP gets larger, I think WP:IAR should get used less and more written rules developed. Regular users should get some slack but administrators should have a thick handbook to consult. I would be interested in helping to creat this handbook. The WP:AHTG is too short.Archtransit (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I fell into this only because Lar is a friend, and I watchlist his page. I have only one comment to make. WP:IAR is a foundational principle of the project, and one thing that makes building an encyclopedia (which is the point, right?) easier. It's a concern to me that you say that this foundational principle should be applied less as the encyclopedia grows. Should it be applied more logically? Sure. But, "less"? Heaven forbid. -- Bellwether _C 17:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a useful topic, not re-living the past day. An IAR discussion. See your talk page. Archtransit (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure what you're referring to. I haven't shown a message regarding IAR from you. The only thing there from you is the DYK note and a short discussion from when I was confused about the DYK procedures. Am I missing something? -- Bellwether _C 17:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• I've responded to your comments on Bellwether's talk page. - Revolving Bugbear 18:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• I have responded at my talk as well. If you don't mind, I'll be making all further comments on this issue there. -- Bellwether _C 18:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit, sorry for butting in like this here, but I saw you saying here that you'd be "willing to clarify the blocking policy at WP:BLOCK". I don't want to sound rude, but after what people have been telling you, don't you think it would be wiser if, for some time to come, you kept your fingers off both the block button and the blocking policy? You have shown some exquisitely poor judgment here, and I for one have really no confidence that you'd be among the people most qualified to work on that policy right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!

RfA

Hey, no worries you clearly deserved it. Congratulations on joining the administrative team, I hope to join you in a few months ;) '''CycloneNimrod''' (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:UAA

Yes, I look for non-compliant user names. I would never, out of fairness, delete a name merely because it was a COI, Corporate name, or such similar violation of the username policy. A second look is always worth it. I'll only block a username on first sight that is violently obnoxious or libelous, such as "User:JohnDoeIsReallyAGirl". :-) Bearian (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Your block of User:Stawiki

Archtransit, I need to talk with you about blocking again. As if you hadn't caused enough trouble already with your block of Jehochmann, now you've apparently made another very bad block in the case of Stawiki (talk · contribs). This is a BLP issue. Stawiki (who may be the subject of the article, I don't know) was making a reasonable case that a certain passage in the Peter M. Sacks article was a BLP violation. He blanked it, with accompanying polite discussion on talk, and informative edit summaries. There is a reasonable suspicion that his His opponent in the edit war was somebody with an axe to grind about the subject in real life and a conflict of interest. Now, you, without a warning, blocked Stawiki for 31h, citing "vandalism"! That's really, really bad. Whatever this was, vandalism it was not. Well, yes, he was edit-warring, but he didn't even break 3RR. Even if he had done so, we wouldn't block a newbie for 31h, not even for a "normal" 3RR violation, let alone for a BLP-related one. In such a case, even if the BLP concern should turn out not to be well based, we engage the user in a polite discussion, taking their concerns seriously. We investigate BLP concerns before we block. We give newbies some slack, especially when they may be being upset about their own BLPs.

I think I am going to unblock Stawiki soon, if he asks for it. And, I hate to say it, but I think now is the time where your admin recall must really begin. Please think about it. One bad block three days after promotion can be forgiven. Another one just 24h after is really one too much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting your error so quickly. Still, this response of yours concerns me very much. Is this really the attitude you take towards blocking?

On another note, just a piece of friendly technical advice: when you do unblocks, especially shortly after an initial block, it's always a good idea to go to Special:Ipblocklist and see if there are autoblocks. Most of the time, there are, and the blocked user will make another irritated complaint at still being unable to edit. (Don't worry, I keep forgetting that too, but it's worth remembering.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Some things are just not meant for me. The rush of vandalism is hard to stop. I think the slower paced 3RR is better for me. It may take a while to sort through but that's something I think I'm better at. So for now, I no longer plan to go to AIV unless there's a AIV help needed at ANI (which sometimes happens). Archtransit (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just out of interest, had this one been reported on AIV? Of course, it shouldn't have been.

Be careful with 3RR too though. Those cases are difficult and often require a lot of very careful judgment. Admins have quite a bit of leeway blocking for 3RR or not, and it takes good common sense to work out to what extent somebody's reverting is actually disruptive. Don't be rash there either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Those sit around for hours so you can spend half an hour or even an hour to study it. Sometimes, after a lot of handholding, a consensus can be reached. Sometimes, it can't. Archtransit (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Bit of advice: consider starting at CAT:CSD. Blocking is an advanced administration skill. It may help if you practice less risky things first. If you delete an article, it can be restored, but when you ding a user, they could get mad and quit forever. You might also ask an experienced administrator to coach you for a few months. Become the best administrator you can be. Don't settle for good enough. Jehochman 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Bluehole/Stawiki

I think you need to investigate further before looking into blocks. The added material appears to be under dispute per WP:BLP, and is being removed in order to discuss the matter on the talk page. Stawiki appears to be doing so in good faith. Please consider unblocking Stawiki. Both users should be given the chance at this point to hammer out their difference on the article talk page. Stawiki is making reasonable arguements to explain his/her reversions, and Bluehole appears to be reticent to engage in a collaborative discussion, and blindly readds them. Please don't be so quick to block without investigating further. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

All the more reason to take your time... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Stawiki deleted all of the content prior to a "talk." I restored the content in good faith. Bluehole (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: prison term?

Per WP:BLOCK, the duration of blocks should be related to the likelihood of the IP repeating the vandalism. Considering every edit from 207.63.190.1 after the last unblock was vandalism, a week seemed appropriate. Spellcast (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not written specifically how long you should block for. Every admin seems to have their standards. If it's school IPs, I block for 3 months at minimum. I also consider factors such as editing history (are all edits simply vandalism? Are there any constructive edits?), whether the IP is dynamic or static, and previous blocks. The block duration obviously increases for every block. Spellcast (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ASAPSmedia

The name "ASAPSmedia" violates our username policy, you should consider reblocking. John Reaves 20:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User offered to change his username yesterday. If he doesn't do so promptly, he should obviously be reblocked, but given that username was the reason for his block, he should be given a chance to change it. - Revolving Bugbear 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: The blocking admin blocked account creation and the user seems to still be caught under the autoblock. - Revolving Bugbear 20:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a question at User talk:Archtransit/recallcriteria

I have more, actually but I'm starting with that one. Do you want to discuss there or here? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Bearian's talk page

I reported the username and he said why it was fine :-) Scarian 21:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:RFCU

I am always scrupulously careful when clerking RFCU requests. I know that some delicate matters may be involved, and act accordingly. However, I am not sure which situation you refer to. I would appreciate more details, privately if you feel the need. Thank you for expressing your concerns. Best, Keilana 22:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. However, there may be a case in which there is a legit reason for requesting checkuser in that type of situation. It's not really up to me to dismiss cases. Best, Keilana 22:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And I agree with you that I should've put the request there. That was an oversight on my part, and I apologise for any confusion. However, I still don't understand how my listing a request led to other events. Thank you for your helpful commentary. Best, Keilana 22:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please also note that it depends on the discretion of the checkuser as to whether the case is accepted, declined or whatever. That decision is largely down to the checkuser and not the clerks. So if there are any issues with this case being accepted or not, you can direct your questions to the checkuser - in this case, me - Alison 23:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

RFCU and "good hand/band hand" accounts

I'm sorry but I'm finding your complaints about Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Onequestion hard to understand. A checkuser discovered a pattern of abusive sockpuppetry by a user who maintains the front of positive contributions. I have the highest respect for Alison, she does a demanding job here and her judgment is absolutely sound. There is a propensity among some users of this site to treat it rather as a game. It comes no doubt with the anonimity. Some users run apparently helpful accounts while using others to cause disruption. A number of administrators have found that when targeted by a series of disruptive vandal accounts, the most likely sockpuppeteer is the user who kindly offered their assistance with these difficulties and had an otherwise spotless record. That's a sad endictment of some of those involved in this project but unfortunately happens. It underpins the sockpuppetry policy against people running "good hand, bad hand" accounts. Alison identified that User:Congolese fufu, whilst themselves an apparently good contributor, operated other accounts disruptively. One of the edits by those sock accounts disclosed personal information and had to be oversighted. I spent 4 months as an admin dealing with checkuser requests. Had I been required to respond to Alison's findings I would have blocked the master account for 1 week. That may seem harsh if you look only at the good contributor, but this pattern of users running "good" and "bad" accounts needs to stop and the only deterrent available is that consequences will follow for the "good" account.

I think you need to defer to those with more experience of patterns of problem behaviour than you have had. I was happy with you becoming an admin because I knew your focus was to be on DYK updates, I would have been more hesitant had I thought you intended to throw yourself head first into more complex issues of user behaviour and sensitive blocks. What is surprising me most at the moment, and is starting to worry me, is that you don't seem to be responding to some of the recent advice you've gotten. I can see that there has been a lot of it, and that this may be a case of information overload, but seriously some very good points have been made above. Take your time to read things through and please slow down. If you don't understand why an action has been taken, take the time to ask why rather than presuming cabalism is behind it. WjBscribe 23:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet another example for why WJBscribe became a 'crat. I have watched this talk page since before these controversies started waiting for a response to a question. I've learned a lot of insight from all of these discussions and comments. Much goes on that isn't apparent to regular users. I'm glad that I've stuck mainly to DYK updates. Royalbroil 03:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hello

"Do you want to show me the policy where my block violates." - It is my opinion (and possibly others' opinion - or "unwritten standards") that the block on Jehochman's account was in violation of the statement that

• "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users."
• "Important note – Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern." (Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy)

I do not think that either of those qualifications are unclear.

"Do you really want to know them or just to let the matter rest? These series of violations cascaded leading to the block. If you don't want to let the matter rest but want to clarify policy (with or without naming names or actions), that's a valid opinion and one that I'm willing to contribute." - I am very aware of ongoing or otherwise present and past violations of policy, and am peripherally aware of the series of violations that lead to the block on Jehochman's account. If you look into some of my contributions, you will see me opining for the unblock of individuals who I thought were unjustly blocked. But calling for a block on the account of the administrator who implemented the block never even crossed my mind (I say "calling for a block" rather than "blocking" because I myself cannot technically implement a block).

I am willing to clarify policy, and to change my opinion, if presented with convincing arguments that I had not yet considered. Are you willing to change your opinion, given similar circumstances? --Iamunknown 01:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

IM's

Hey, Do you use an Instant Messengers?

Cheers

—Reedy Boy 19:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

Good job on the 747 and congrats overall on your adminship. Do I have to curtsey when I talk to you? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

What should be next? At first I was thinking about the Fairchild Dornier 728 but that's obscure. Maybe the 737 to FA status? It's a lot of work so maybe FA-equivalent would be easier (which is editing as if we were trying to reach FA status but none of that FAC review). Archtransit (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK notification

Thanks for the message about DYK and indeed for updating it. There seems to have been a bit of a shift in who wrote what, however, and you appear to have credited people with the wrong articles! violet/riga (t) 19:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Class of 9"

Cool idea. :) Development though? Rudget. 19:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll "watch" the talk pages of everyone who responds here.--Appraiser (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• That sounds fine to me, although you'll probably get bored watching my talk page! Kbthompson (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can it be a class of 10? I'd like to join the group, I just became admin about 3 days ago and I recognize lots of you. The only thing I'll need is a link to where that darn "class" is...I remember Archtransit proposing it somewhere...I've cross posted this from where I found it on User:Rudget's page. Keeper | 76 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'd like to partake. I like the name Class of 9, especially if it has 10 "members". Kinda like the Big Ten Conference with it's 11 members. didn't you post something somewhere about this? I remember seeing something, unless I was indescribably toasted, I'm sure it exists. Was it at a new admin page? Keeper | 76 21:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like nice idea, sure. We can make sure we all know how to close AfD discussions properly (see my talk page)! --Canley (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hurricane Kenneth on September 18 2005.jpg

Hi. You protected Image:Hurricane Kenneth on September 18 2005.jpg, as it was featured on the Main Page. However, the image was on Commons, so protecting the local image page on Misplaced Pages doesn't affect the image.

Someone vandalized the unprotected image on Commons, and it was briefly on the Main Page. I've fixed it by uploading a local copy, which overrides the Commons image, and is automatically cascade protected. In the future, if a Commons image is unprotected when it's featured on the Main Page, a local copy needs to be uploaded temporarily. No problem, we all make mistakes! --Slowking Man (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with images on DYK

They got you. The Main page DYK image was a picture of two idiots for a few minutes because someone vandalized Commons. You'll want to read the commented-out instructions at the top of T:DYK to prevent that in the future. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Woops, what Slowking Man said above... Sorry for the repeat. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Responded here. Let me know if you'd like more info/assistance. Cascade protection is another concept that will be helpful to know. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the vandalism.

I do apologize for the recent vandalism of certain pages visted from this computer. I didn't know such changes took effect instantly. I thought everything was approved before being placed on the actual site. In fact I was just fooling around and showing my friends at work my edits. I guess I thought I was in the sandbox but was not. Anyways, I have now read the terms and policies of this site and I hope to be unblocked soon. Thank you.

Airman, you were never blocked. Archtransit (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to say when I made changes about Minot AFB being located in the North Pole....well if you were every stationed their you would understand. Anyways next time I make a joke I will make sure its not "publicly" displayed on any website. LOL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.10.254.61 (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

surely you are a worker of miracles

I just wanted to say that I've been editing Misplaced Pages since 2005, and I have never once seen an anonymous IP apologize for vandalism.

I don't know what you did, but congrats. - Revolving Bugbear 22:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The airman was never blocked. It shows character. It also shows that this admin may have some insight to others' character. (or is clueless) Archtransit (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hello

Hello there! I took a break from about the end of November to this past week, and I don't post often at AN or ANI – I work mostly on deletions, copyright problems, and AIV, although I check AN3 and RFPP often and will pitch in there if they're backlogged. Congratulations on your nice, shiny new mop! Are you having fun yet? :-D The only part I dislike is the distraction it is from writing articles. Those backlogs just pull me in.

In answer to your question, yes, there is a better way. That's the good news. The bad news is that each one of the XFD pages/logs has its own individual unique closing process.

For AFD, it's here. AFD closing, in a nutshell:

• Decide the outcome, be it keep/delete/no consensus/keep part and delete others or whatever it is. Today I closed a multiple AFD that came out to delete 9 articles and keep 2. It was the last open AFD for that day. Usually the last open AFDs of a particular day's log are the longest or messiest to close.
• Add {{subst:at}} to the top, above the heading/article name, followed by '''result''', followed by any comments or rationale you want to make, then your signature;
• Add {{subst:ab}} to the very bottom of the page;
• If it's a delete, delete the article, using "consensus to delete at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Example" as the rationale, then the article's talk page under WP:CSD#G8; or
• If it's a keep, remove the AFD notice from the article, and add {{Oldafdfull}} to the article's talk page and fill in the parameters.

The two templates, "at" and "ab", together will give the nice, neat little box containing the 'please do not modify it' at the bottom and 'the following is an archived discussion' at the top.

Be sure to add {{subst:at}} above the article name, because Mathbot, the bot that counts the number of open discussions at WP:AFDO, won't mark it as closed if the template is under the article name. Guess how I learned that? ;-)

WP:DPR has the processes for all the deletion discussions, and I have no idea why they're all different. Some want {{subst:at}} above the article name, like AFD does, and some want that template below the article name. It's a mass of confusion designed to suck the very souls out of we admins, to force us to cower in the corner like Oliver saying, "Please, sir, I want some more?" We, however, will _not_ be demoralized, for we are the Rouge Admins of the Cabal, and we're only here because we're power-hungry morons intent on bashing all the little minion users intent on whatever they're intent on doing!

**slaps herself across the face to stop the insanity**

Anyway, just follow the process, and you'll get the hang of it. If you happen to close an AFD that calls for a merge or an article that's been nominated for AFD more than once, let me know and I'll show you how to do it because it's not really covered at DPR. Relisting can be tricky too, but if you pay attention there shouldn't be a problem. Before I stood for RFA, I did non-admin closures of AFDs, clear 'keep' ones, and I had the DPR page open in another window as a guide.

Let me know if you have questions. The admin reading guide is okay but it's _really_ incomplete, and we're all in this cabal together, and I love to teach. You wouldn't have the mop if you weren't ready, so go for it! See ya – KrakatoaKatie 23:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you know?

I saw your note on CAT:RFU where you thought it was odd that many people block for 31 hours. I decided to make an impromptu "did you know?" about it :). The reason being is that when you block for 24 hours, the vandal knows that they can come back at the same time tommorow and resume their vandalism - however if they are blocked for 31 hours, it takes away that ability - very useful for vandals who are editing in classroom situations where they will likely be in a position the same time on the next day to vandalize again. Trusilver (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Email

You have a new one. Regards, - PeaceNT (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

GM

Hi there; I took this to be a fairly obvious relationship to General Motors, but I must admit that I had not realised that I had blocked account creation; a slip of the mind, I'm afraid. Thank you for correcting it. --Anthony.bradbury 19:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Regardless of whether CltFn deserves an indefinite block, talking with the blocking admin before unblocking is always a wise move. It's human nature to feel upset if a block you have made is lifted without consultation first. Your idea to give CltFn 7 days to shape up is creative, and a very nice gesture of good faith. I am afraid it may be unfair to CltFn, however, as nobody can be so perfect in 7 days as to reverse years of history. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reblocked the user. The clear consensus from that discussion on AN/I is to retain the block. Should this situation ever arise again with myself or any other admin at least tell the blocking admin and/or discuss a possible unblock on AN/I. Unilaterally deciding to unblock a user when many are against it is not cool at all. Thanks.--Jersey Devil (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we ago again

You don't seem keen on the idea of discussing things with your colleagues. Your unblock proposal may have been a good one, or it might not. But either way you should have proposed it at WP:AN/I and seen if other people agree. That way you could have had input from your more experienced colleagues as to whether there was much hope of solving these behavioural difficulties. Going ahead and unblocking without that discussion gave you little mandate and was bound to cause further drama (making the the situation worse not better). There is an element of diplomacy to doing this job well. You need to start appreciating that being new to using these tools, a certain amount of deference to those with more experience is necessary. WjBscribe 00:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I concure with WJB, Arch. You really need to take a step back from controversial admin actions for awhile. Unblocking a consensus indef-ed user (there was next to no opposition to the indef when it was brought up at ANI) was not the best use of your tools. I like you, Arch, but these kind of moves really need to stop. -- Bellwether _C 00:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur also. I replaced the indefblock template you removed – I hope you didn't simply rollback JetLover's placement of the tag, because rollback is used to revert vandalism, not good-faith edits. The AN/I discussion about this block was more than 12 hours old when you unblocked him, and you did not participate in it at all. AN and AN/I are your first stops, not your last.

I had not yet caught up on all my reading from my Wiki-break when I left my comment above, that you wouldn't have the admin tools unless you were ready. After I read about Jehochman's block and its aftermath, I thought, "Well, he's a new admin, and he'll learn." Now, however, I think you need to stop for a while and watch other experienced admins before you take any further unilateral admin actions. We all want you to succeed, truly, but your watchword should be 'caution' instead of 'haste'. Take care - KrakatoaKatie 02:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the blocked user. My unblock was merely trying to reach a compromise between the opinions in favor of the block and those not in full agreement. You will note that I never advocated positions for the blocked user, I merely refered to the expressed opinions of others. We are banning people after merely 12 hours when RFA receive 7 days of discussion, ArbCom elections take 14 days, and even the old CSM board allowed several days of discussion. JerseyDevil simply did a wheel war by reimposing his defacto ban. He could have compromised between his original block and the compromise 7 day trial unblock. Archtransit (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You may advocate for that plan, but you need to get agreement before using tools. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Then see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62. Admins who behave the way you have been behaving tend to get into difficulties. Consensus is achieved through discussion, not through forced compromises. What bothers me here is that we're all giving you helpful advice, but you don't seem to be listening. Jehochman 18:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Perhaps a discussion of the CSM board instead of this particular user will be more productive. Defacto banning of people after a mere half day of discussion and not giving them a chance to defend themselves is very bad form. I am concerned that the editor has not been given a chance to defend themselves. I am reluctant to defend the user but I am willing to defend the ability of the user to defend themselves. Archtransit (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're looking at the trees but the issue here is the forest. There's always a balance to be struck between boldness and discretion. That balance will shift depending on the issue at hand. Undoing the actions of other admins is especially sensitive, so the balance is far to the "discretion" side. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The user has been blocked 23 times. They have had way more than enough opportunities to defend themselves and correct their behavior. Even when blocked, they can appeal by emailing the ArbCom mailing list. Jehochman 18:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is easy for admins to say "I block you, you go to ArbCom if you disagree". ArbCom is so busy with other matters that unblock request are not routinely done. The original block was controversial as another admin brought it to ANI. This is evidence that there may have been a problem with the original block.

Usually, unblock requests are denied, often with very rude comments. I have seen WP:RFU. The number of users unblocked is small. Incivility by admins is frequent. It's terrible. One problem is that WP:RFU are not archived so some admin treat people very badly. I'll admit that some of the blocked characters are bad themselves but being rude to them is not the way we should be.

This matter has some positive sides! I have made a proposal on ANI, 2 in fact. I haven't acted on either one except to mention them. Archtransit (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The way to affect change is through discussion, and by establishing your own credibility. Remember, a friendly suggestion will often be heard and followed, but a hostile action (unblock without discussion) will often cause people to become more entrenched. Jehochman 18:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong suggestion

I strongly strongly suggest you be a great deal more deliberative for a while... before you do anything at all likely to be controversial, ask others for opinions. Other people would be glad to help you if you ask first. Right now you're on the road to be recalled as soon as your self imposed 30 day limit (which, by the way really isn't something that sits well with a number of people, you know) is up. That would be a shame, because you have the seeds of a good admin (you care, you want to help) but you are failing right now, due to what appears to be impetuous actions. You really really need to heed the advice of others. At this point your safe course is to ask first, seek consensus, and only then act. Perhaps confine yourself to stuff really likely to not be controversial? Maybe CAT:CSD stuff??? Perhaps find an admin with the time and interest to take you under their wing for a while, someone you trust and respect? And remember, people are giving you advice because they care... not because they want to give you grief. ++Lar: t/c 19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Good advice in general but I have to point out that CSD definitely does not qualify as uncontroversial. You'll have people jumping down your throat the second you erroneously delete an article, as I've learned the hard way. WP:AIV is a better bet. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha! I can help with CAT:CSD. I was taught very well how to speedy delete things without creating controversies. If Archtransit wants my advice, my take page is open for business. Jehochman 19:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would recommend that CSD is the place to go. AIV involves blocking, and this admin's judgement with regards to issues of blocking have been called into question. As with Jehochman, I would offer my tutelege with regards to deleting articles if Archtransit wants it. Before becoming an admin, I successfully tagged over 800 articles for CSD and PROD; no more than a dozen or so were ever declined. I have a pretty good idea what a speedy-deletable article looks like. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Block of Jehochman and beyond

Hi. I've been away and just caught this. I hope you realize how problematic it is for very new admins to block other admins. You need to be more familiar with policy, and as a new sysop, that means taking it slow. And the formalistic explanation is not how we do things around here. Now I look above to find you unblocked someone without any discussion whatsoever?(!) What sort of assurances can you provide me with that you will improve in the future? Because at the moment, I am leaning toward requesting the Arbitration Committee to desysop you. I am concerned that, in light of your problematic approach, the next controversial action you take may prove too damaging to simply wait and see. El_C 04:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

response

Thank you for your kind suggestion, at least the first half. It appears threatening in the second half. Your concern for the unblock worries me a bit because you haven't mentioned that Jersey Devil violated an ArbCom directive that admin are not to wheel war, which they defined as the 3rd action of block-unblock-block. The particular ArbCom directive did not define wheel warring as block-unblock.

Furthermore, the decision to unblock was made after notification to Jersey Devil. Prior permission is not a requirement. The decision to unblock was made with consideration of the following comments made by others at ANI such as: ::*Interjection: This is not true. You notified Jersey Devil (according to the logs) over three hours after you had taken this unilateral, against-consensus, decision. I'm just setting the record straight on this point. -- Bellwether _C 16:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC) ::There was a description on the block log noting the action as an attempted compromise between the two positions of block and unblock as well as an e-mail sent. Please don't interrupt the message. Please also consider the dynamics of your message. It is creating a dispute. Let's focus on resolution of the situation such as by proposing alternate solutions. Archtransit (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Both comments made small to avoid the interjection and disruption of thought - this is, after all, my user talk page I want to stress that I do not agree or disagree with the block - I just think it needs to be discussed to ensure that there is community support for an action: B

…and may be a tad too controversial about how edits are made, but he/she isn't totally wrong.: Anynobody (referring to the blocked user)

Has CltFn been a party to any form of DR at all?: Anynobody (I think there’s been no DR)

I think an indef. block is a bit harsh, considering what he did. CltFn has, after all, been good for over a year since the last block…I am very confused as to why this disserves an indef. block.: Yahel Guhan

All I am proposing is that we give him one last chance to change before an indef. block after a month. Heck, we give repeat vandals that opportunity all the time, with 1 month, 3 month, 1 year blocks, but almost never indef. Besides, at least he remained on the talk page for the most part this time, rather than in the article, where he is less disruptive, which may mean he might be trying to improve himself: Yahel Guhan

Not that I am trying to sanction what he did, but I do think an indef. time period is excessive, at least at this point: Yahel Guhan

A suggestion for formal WP:DR has been made onthe user's page. Perhaps, given his long-term contributor status, it may be to our advantage to let him try that process?: ThuranX

I am however also happy to endorse Thuran's proposed course of action and comments above also.: Orderinchaos

I supported the block. The above was very much a second-choice option in the event that the decision had been taken out of the community's hands. Orderinchaos 17:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

also note:

based on looking through his contributions, if an admin is willing to keep a close eye on a problem user, that's a low risk proposition: B

I don't have a problem with Archtransit's action providing tha the follows through on it. I do have a problem with the same admin who originally made the block reimplementing it.: B (being critical of JerseyDevil’s wheel warring)

Please don't interpret this message as an ongoing fight...

but it is merely a longer explanation made necessary because of your ArbCom mention. Also please note that ArbCom is a busy panel and that they require prior attempts such as mediation before submitting the case. I am willing to have formal or informal mediation with you or others. I am also in the process of making a new and novel suggestion on ANI to resolve the concerns raised above by others (the quotes above). Please remember that I have never advocated for the blocked user but have merely considered comments that others made. I have never supported the user with comments like "the user is not that bad" or even "the user deserves a chance". I am merely trying to bridge the gap between opinions that others have expressed. The reaching of compromise has been my primary goal in this entire episode. Consensus is not one side shouting loudly enough and ignoring the stated concerns of a few. Archtransit (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Jersey Devil violated an ArbCom directive that admin are not to wheel war". This was not a case of wheel warring, this was a case of an appropriate decision being made, it being overturned by someone with no consultation, the matter being taken to AN/I and then put right. That's happened to me before, so I know what it's like - the youthful admin in my case, where I was acting in a situation of which I had considerable knowledge of all of the parties, overturned my decision to block one of them for harassment and revealing a personal address without so much as asking me. You can imagine how upsetting that would be, and an AN/I unanimously endorsed my original block and I reimposed it. I'm not quite sure why you're so willing to defend a user who has been blocked 23 times and has clearly worn thin the patience of the community, especially now it has emerged that offers similar to yours have previously been made and violated. Jimbo Wales himself banned a user indefinitely for exhausting the community's patience about two months ago, and made very clear that we should no longer stand for people who are not here to help the encyclopaedia. This came as a relief to many admins and users alike who were tired of seeing trolls ducking and weaving to invoke process to keep doing what they were doing and holding up development in entire areas. I'm inclined to trust the blocking admin on this one, who wouldn't have hit the indef button for no reason.

Moving on - I think you've failed to understand the depth of community sentiment about your own actions in recent days, though. You characterised El_C's second half as a "threat". I'd say it was simply honesty. Admin abuses are given short shrift nowadays - the Physchim62 ArbCom case went straight from an admin being blocked to ArbCom, who decided within 2 weeks and effectively desysopped the user. Another case involving a controversial block by another admin which got to the press ended up at ArbCom a couple of weeks earlier with similar results - and that was with a user with a good history and a long record of service, too. In this case - people who until 3-4 days ago hadn't even heard of you are now seriously angry at you. The fact that you have demonstrated no comprehension of this, and more likely unintentionally than not convey in your replies to others a disrespect of fellow volunteers trying to hammer out compromises every day of their Wikiexistence only to be told what to do and how things work by someone who passed barely 11 days ago, probably amplifies this.

One final thing - policy is not a blindly legalistic tool which must be followed to the letter at all costs, irrespective of common sense or consensus. I've noticed in a number of responses you've rather narrowly interpreted policy in a way that, as an admin of almost a year standing, I can say is not the way the policy is meant to work. They're all meant to work together, and it takes an understanding of why a policy was developed and the actual problem it's trying to combat, not merely what it says, to implement it effectively. Orderinchaos 16:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I disagree here. Jersey Devil restored his own block after it had been reversed by another admin in good faith - that's wheel warring. If he was so sure of the consensus for his block, he could have left it to another administrator to restore it. Archtransit should have made his proposal at AN/I before acting. But the amount of hounding he's getting for assuming goof faith of a troublesome user is a little disturbing. ArbCom will not desysop someone over one bad block and one bad unblock - at most he would be "strongly cautioned" to seek consensus before block/unblocking in future. He seems to have recieved that message from other admins already. WjBscribe 17:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is I'm not so sure that he has. I've seen numerous *lengthy* posts justifying his own actions, wikilawyering, and even occasionally throwing around insults and personal attacks, but not a hint of an apology, a retraction, an indication that he's going to change his approach to this. That's what I find most disturbing - people can and do make mistakes (especially when new), it's how they handle it afterwards that matters. What I'm seeing here is a serious and ongoing risk to the community. Orderinchaos 17:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit, I think it's pretty clear that the community has lost any confidence it once had in you as an admin. Your frankly ridiculous recall criteria can't help in any way I can see. When the issue is repeatedly poor judgement, there's no plausible way for you to claim you can improve this in a few short weeks. If you resign now and start exhibiting better judgement, you may have hope of a successful RFA sometime in the future. If you keep going the way you're going, you're going to lose the bit soon anyway, and I suspect many people would have a very hard time supporting your adminship ever again. Friday (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, at what stage did we decide to give new admins so little a chance? Suggesting to someone their only option is to resign now is hardly a positive step. I cannot see a case for saying that ArbCom would desysop on past behaviour. That said, Archtransit - I repeat previous comments I have made here. When we discussed your readiness for adminship it was on the understanding that you would mainly be undertaking non-controversial tasks like DYK updating of which you had a lot of experience. Had I thought you were going to throw yourself into making controversial decisions of user conduct, I would have recommended you spend more time commenting in those areas and getting a feel for the mechanics. I strongly suggest keeping to the non controversial stuff and avoiding using your tools in controversial cases unless there is a strong consensus behind you. Admins can be involved in determining these issues without actually making use of the block/unblock function. WjBscribe 17:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I consider it productive to look forward rather than argue on past matters. There was no vandalism during the short time the blocked user was unblocked. There is some continued discussion on ANI on how to improve the situation, which is more productive than repeated discussion on why I'm bad or why others are bad. My goal is not a point by point argument, although some of you are making that difficult to resist. My goal is resolution of the situation to account for everyone's opinions on ANI. I think it's possible. Unlike AFD where it's all or nothing, delete or keep, a solution to the block user can include that 98% block solution, which is a 98% concession to those wanting indefinite block and 2% to the other opinions expressed. It's also not my intention to choose the most controversial ANI topics in the future, either. Archtransit (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think in this case, a little looking back is going to be needed. You can't function as an admin without the support of your colleagues. If they think it necessary for to review past decisions and determine where you went wrong and how you would handle those situation in future, you may have to do so. If you intend to change your approach, state so clearly so people know the problem has been seen and dealt with. Much as I think a lot is being made of those mistakes, being new you don't have a long history of getting it right to fall back upon. So far a lot of admins have only seen your name in a negative context and are lacking confidence in your abilities. I really can't empress strongly enough how essential detting that confidence back really is. WjBscribe 17:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to give Archtransit another chance if they commit to following WJBscribe's advice. Jehochman 17:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In some countries, confession is very important. You must confess to your crime, sign the confession, etc. I am willing to cooperate and confess. There seems to be controversy on 3 actions. Action 1 was blocking of Jehochman for 12 hours citing violation of policy and need to protect WP against further violation while the block admin contemplated. I regret this action because it was too strict interpretation of policy. I also had some other concerns about Jehochman but it's counterproductive to discuss them now. He does have some very good attributes as an admin. Action 2 was blocking a user for blanking sections of text after they were reported to AIV. It really looked like vandalism. Oops! Action 3 is ongoing. This situation is difficult because handling this matter is not a mere vote but should take into account as many opinions as possible. The easy way is to say nothing, be selfish, and let the guy burn, ignore the opinions of other admins and editors who made comments that challenge some aspect of banning. I do plan to take the easy road in the future most or all of the time. There are some who are angry at me. Why not channel than energy into a solution for this matter? The easy way is ban. The more intellectually challenging way is to think of a solution. There might not be a solution but there might be. Archtransit (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your note at my talkpage

I no longer trust you (based upon your poor decisions thus far with the tools) to implement tools-based decisions, "novel" or not. You seem completely unwilling to consider that your decisions recently have been incredibly poor, even when WJB (in a defense of you!) points a few out. Until this behavior changes, I'm unwilling to support any modifications to CltFn's block made by you. -- Bellwether _C 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

suggestion for compromise

Can I suggest a compromise?

Archtransit: Would you be willing, both as a learning tool and as a measure of good faith, to, for a specified (we'll figure that out later) length of time, submit all of your admin actions to a neutral second opinion unless there exists a clear consensus mandate (such as a unanimous AfD that has been listed for at least five days, or an action that at least two other admins have asked you to take)?

Other admins here: Would you be willing to supply Archtransit with such a neutral second opinion if asked? I, for one, would.

I think we can achieve much more good by helping a new admin who seems to be having trouble handling the tools than to lose the help of someone who could potentially be very, well, helpful.

I am open to suggestions for tweaking or giving specifics to this plan. And if it fails, then I won't stand in the way of further action.

Thoughts? - Revolving Bugbear 17:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support that, as it would mean we have another admin's judgement on board until the user has enough experience to make those decisions themselves. (Kind of like training wheels on a bike, really.) Orderinchaos 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the idea of mentoring. Let's not be bureaucratic, but having another admin check a newbie admin's work is not a bad idea, and could help the newbie develop better skills, a goal we all should have. Jehochman 17:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is meant to start off with "baby steps", but can evolve as rapidly as Archtransit does. If it works successfully for (insert time length here), the guidelines can hopefully be loosened. Unfortunately, starting from scratch seems to be the safest way to do this for Archtransit's sake. I considered suggesting a mentor, but mentoring can be very burdensome on a singular person. Consider this my idea of a "community intervention". - Revolving Bugbear 17:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If he actually did this, sure, it would help. The reason I was suggesting he just throw in the towel is that common sense approaches that should have worked, have already failed. Friday (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand both your concerns and your motivations, and I don't necessarily disagree with them. Consider this a last-ditch effort if you like. - Revolving Bugbear 17:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is counter-productive to throw in the towel in this case. We all benefit and learn when we all try to work together. Kingturtle (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As a complete aside...

Can you please acknowledge if you have misquoted selectively quoted me on any other talk pages I haven't got to yet? I'm seriously not impressed about being used in support of your arguments, especially since the actual quote explicitly endorsed the block. Orderinchaos 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In essence it appears dishonest, even if that was not your intention. You've left out the bit of Thuran's where he agreed with the block, and the bit of mine where I did, and quoted it on goodness knows how many people's talk pages without informing either of us. Also, the context is missing - you had unblocked. Thuran and I agreed with the block but were resigned to yet another unproductive user having been unblocked without discussion, so tried to make the best of it. That was a tone of resignation, not a nuance. Please be more careful in future in adapting the comments of others. Orderinchaos 18:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries (and thanks) - just please be more careful next time. Orderinchaos 18:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Block of Jehochman and beyond

Hi again. I'm a bit pressed for time, so I'm afraid I have yet to review some of the comments by others to my note (I'll do that once I get back). I have, however, read yours and, in the interest of organization, will answer here, in a new section. I'm sorry that you read my seeking of the aforementioned assurances as a threat. Such was not the intent. Also, I am not too interested in the specifics of the dispute(s) as much as in your execution of the un/block(s) in question. With regards to the wheel warring on the part of JD, I actually view that far less severely than your unblock; though such a reflexive action is, of course, problematic; that said, if I am to submit a case before the Committee, I will, however, ask for leniency for him (i.e. nothing beyond a warning). That, since I am concerned more about the spirit then letter of the rules. But JD's unblock is besides the point. As for the Committee being busy, indeed they are, but I'm confident they'll give my case prompt consideration, nonetheless.

As for entering into mediation or any other formalities (admin conduct RfC, etc.), I reject those options due to the relative urgency of this. The former, because it is usually reserved for content disputes and is a lengthy process, and the latter, simply because it's lengthy. You have made two rather questionable acts within a period of a few days, and your above response, sadly, does not inspire confidence. But do not despair, because I am willing to give you another chance to clarify, directly and concisely: are you prepared, from now on, to commit to discussing unblocks prior to implementing these, and, at least in the next few months, consult a more experience admin before blocking a fellow sysop?

A simple yes is all I need in order to move on and take no further action regarding the (frankly, inexplicable) block of Jehochman and (wholly undiscussed) unblock of ctrl F. Please, I am looking for a direct answer. Many thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your message is unclear. You ask for a clear yes answer but the question is not clear. I get the impression that the question is "Unless you make a confession, I will bring this to ArbCom". If that impression is wrong, then your message is unclear!

This is not an emergency. In the days since the original ANI post, nothing has happened except discussion.

Let's move on to more productive things. If your question was if I would have done things differently in retrospect, the answer is clearly yes. Archtransit (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled you find "the question" to be "not clear." I'm just going to copy it, word-for-word, since that's how clear I feel it is. Question: are you prepared, from now on, to commit to discussing unblocks prior to implementing these, and, at least in the next few months, consult more experienced admin before blocking a fellow sysop? Yes, or no? El_C 17:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As a previously-uninvolved admin, I should note that any Misplaced Pages administrator's answer to El C's question should almost always be 'yes'. There are very few circumstances where it is either necessary or appropriate to under another admin's blocks without discussion. When a discussion exists and is ongoing on AN/I, it is never acceptable to take action without participating in the discussion.

El C's request has nothing to do with trying to humble you or threaten an apology out of you. (As far as I know, he's never asked you to offer him, or anyone else, any sort of apology or confession.) He just wants you to understand how to avoid making the same mistakes over again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting the question from the previous message. The tone of your message seems angry and confrontational. I don't know if this is true or the intention. If it is true, consider stepping back for a while.

Question 1: Are you prepared, from now on, to commit to discussing unblocks prior to implementing these.

Answer: I plan to discuss unblocks as a general rule.

However, some unblocks by others have been done without discussion. Some of these unblocks done without discussion have not resulted in further discussion. I will be more cautious if this path is taken. Some blocks are clearly a mistake and discussion for the sake of discussion only creates delays. For example, I recently unblocked someone and changed the conditions of unblock. I notified the blocking admin but did not have prior discussion. The blocking admin later agreed with my change. Discussion would have only tormented the editor with a delay.

Question 2: At least in the next few months, consult a more experience admin before blocking a fellow sysop?

Answer: Yes.

Comment: The asking of question 2 plays into the hands of those who accuse Misplaced Pages of cabalism. I would not have phrased the question like that.

Archtransit (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you find the tone "angry and confrontational," such was not the intent. That said, I'm looking for a concrete, unqualified commitment (i.e. without additional explanations). Are you prepared to commit to that formula, yes, or no? Thanks. El_C 18:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I find your (Archtransit) addition of "as a general rule" to your answer to his first question quite disturbing. It means you would consider an unblock without discussion with the blocking admin. This is completely unacceptable, given your early track record with regards to the tools. Sure, more experienced admins can do that sometimes. You're not experienced, and have made multiple big mistakes in judgement. I strongly recommend that you submit yourself to some kind of admin mentoring. -- Bellwether _C 07:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

New section

Keeper has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You've had a rough week. You should eat a cookie. My only advice to you is to try as best you can not to be a bear trapped in a corner. You have likely joined many a-watchlist of other admins/editors that are watching your every move, and I'd hate to see a good editor lose the mop. I hope you can refrain a bit about the controversial-y stuff and build an admin-reputation before trying to change the wiki-world, if that's even possible. There's no rush. Cheers to you, and happy editing, may I suggest some article editing? Keeper | 76 21:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:King of Games 363.

I don't have time to explain right now, as I have to go, but I'll come by and explain in detail (seeing as you're new, congrats :) ). And I've never heard that wikipedia sells photos... · AndonicO 21:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that doesn't mean we sell images.

To answer your question though, this is why I indefblocked:

1. Take a look at the image (admin-only link). It's of horrible quality, and passes multiple WP:CSD criteria. I sincerely doubt the person is dead, anyway (looks staged).
2. He added the image to the Death, Snow, and Sweatpants articles; death I can understand, but the other two hint at vandalism.
3. This screams vandalism.
4. His reason for unblock is probably made up. (Unblock request decleined by Sandstein.).

Hope that helps. · AndonicO 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the DYK

Thanks for the DYK on the St. Moritz-Celerina Olympic Bobrun article yesterday. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

please explain

You need to explain this block, Archtransit. As it stands now, it looks pretty bad for you. The chronology, from where I'm sitting, is this:

• 16:00 - He vandalises your user page. This is his first and only edit.
• 16:00 (more or less immediate) - The edit is identified and reverted by VoABot II.
• 16:00 (I love bots) - VoABot II warns the user.
• 17:02 - You leave a double message on the user's talk page with two signatures and two (identical) time stamps, first warning him again for the above diff and then identifying his "edit pattern" as a vandalism-only account. (Again, he only has one edit.)
• 17:04 (block log link above) - You indefblock him with the block reason "Vandalism: vandalism only SPA"
• As of 17:49 - There is no block notification on his talk page.

I'm sorry to do this to you, but I hope there's a good explanation for this. - Revolving Bugbear 17:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The user in question has only one edit, a vandalism edit. They wiped out part of a user page. Do you want to give them a 2nd chance? If so, go ahead. I have seen other admin block indef for users with only 1 or 2 edits, all of them unmistakable vandalism. Archtransit (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like you to explain why you chose to do this. - Revolving Bugbear 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you object to the block, let me know what duration the block should be or if the user should not be blocked. Archtransit (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

All I have requested so far is for you to explain why you decided to indefblock a user an hour after his only edit. - Revolving Bugbear 18:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This was based on observation of other admins. If you think that there should be no block, let me know immediately! Archtransit (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Pvtpepperjack Should Pvtpepperjack be unblocked per your reasoning? Archtransit (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

One vandalising edit, indef block an hour later. Pretty similar situations, its true. 18:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I very nearly indef'd User:Bqwe123 myself. He's an obvious sock of another vandal (can't recall its other name right now, starts with a B though). In a narrow sense maybe the block should have been done by another admin, but that strikes me as a bit WP:BURO. 18:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Meh. It's an account that was only ever used once, for vandalism. (It wasn't just a user test; it was the blanking of a userpage, and replacement of the content with the word 'dick'.) The username is a nonsense string of characters. I don't really see the harm in blocking such accounts indefinitely even without a warning. While it is acceptable to add a 'blocked' notice to the talk page of such accounts, it is by no means necessary in cases where it should be immediately obvious from the block log entry and the user's contribution history why the block was placed.

The multiple messages used by Archtransit are a bit odd, however. It's customary to either warn or block—not do both at the same time. Using internal Misplaced Pages jargon ("The editing pattern you exhibit is commonly called SPA/vandalism...") in these messages is not really a good idea.

Bugbear, if you'd like to discuss the block further then AN/I would be an appropriate venue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The block looks bad because he vandalised Archtransit's page, and Archtransit left a very deceptive warning on his page before blocking. Besides, I actually do disagree with the Pvtpepperjack block per WP:BITE. - Revolving Bugbear 18:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That other admins may or may not have made inappropriate blocks does not answer the question being asked here by Bugbear. He has asked a straightforward question, and you have repeatedly attempted to divert attention and scrutiny away from yourself by bringing up other admins. The question still remains, why did you choose to make the block you did? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

He already explained his reasoning above. I don't see anything to be gained by having him explain it over and over again. I'm very concerned about some of Arch's other actions but in this case I think he acted properly. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was actually going to block that particular user after seeing his "contribution" to archtransit's page. Seems like really a rather non-controversial block and in keeping with what previous admins have done in similar situations regarding their own userpages. Archtransit simply beat me to it. If their was no "history", then this would not be contested and I believe his block was warranted and acceptable as noncontroversial. Keeper | 76 18:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We learn by observing. If you (any editor) think the duration is wrong or there should be a block at all, let me know. WP:LOP does not specify the exact length of blocking (as far as I can see). If it did, I would observe that policy. Archtransit (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Jayron, you're bordering on badgering Archtransit here. While Arch did do a couple of dumb things with the block buttons in the last couple of days, it's not helpful to hound him over what seems to be a perfectly normal, reasonable block. Archtransit has already explained that he saw Bqwe123 as a vandalism-only account, and that he blocked on that basis. He refers to other admins' actions not to draw attention away from himself – put down the assumption of bad faith, please – but to illustrate that other admins agree that blocking after one vandalism edit is a common practice. If you find that explanation unsuitable, take it to AN/I—but don't say that Archtransit hasn't answered the question.

It is neither inappropriate nor particularly uncommon for an admin to block an editor that vandalizes the admin's user or user talk pages. The implication that it is unethical for admins to take action against clear vandalism on their own pages is quite misguided. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. All of that seems reasonable. I withdraw my objections to this situation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I apologize for my tone back there. Reading it again, it was unneccesarily accusatory and combative. Archtransit has had some problems in the past, but he's learning, and I agree he should probably be given more benefit of the doubt. I was part of that problem, and I apologize for doing so. Being an admin is not easy, and Archtransit is doing a fine job. Sorry for being such a WP:DICK on this... My bad... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I generally think these kinds of blocks are questionable, but a large number of admins seem to think they're legitimate, which is something that I don't like but there's really nothing I can do about it. I don't think it's "unethical", but I do think it's not something that should be gone about lightly. I disagree with this block being "noncontroversial" (I think that almost any non-threat 1-edit indefblock is controversial), even if it is "acceptable". At best, this sort of block reinforces the cabal/elitism perception.

However, Archtransit, I hope you can see why this block looked suspect. The way in which the block was implemented appeared very confusing, and, Arch, anything potentially confusing is probably something you want to be very wary of. - Revolving Bugbear 18:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)