User talk:Archtransit

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 Wikipedia, 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^Charge! 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 Wikipedia: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 - [1] 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

Delivered on January 5th, 2008 by Jza84. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

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 - Wikipedia: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...

[2]

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 Wikipedia, 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

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia can use them. I have just been marking those particular images that are helpful to Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia administrator named Archtransit was going to be contacting him about the images. He responded that he's happy to help Wikipedia, even if it's in a small way. I replied that his help is far beyond small! Royalbroil 14:49, 12 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 ^Talk 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 ^talk 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 ^Talk 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 [3] 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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia: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 ^Talk 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. ^Avruchtalk 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. ^Avruchtalk 18:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC) ^{Struck out in good faith, I would still like to see an acknowledgement of an error here prior to the closing of the noticeboard thread. Avruchtalk 20:03, 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. ^Avruchtalk 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... Wikipedia: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. [4]

^Avruchtalk 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 ^B_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 ^B_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 [5] 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,[6] 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 Wikipedia 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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^Talk 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 [the block] was originally done in good faith to try to observe official Wikipedia 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. ^Avruchtalk 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. ^Avruchtalk 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 ^B_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 ^B_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 ^B_C 18:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit, sorry for butting in like this here, but I saw you saying here [7] 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!

Dear Archtransit, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 16:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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 ^Talk 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^{Call me Pat} 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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)