Jump to content

User talk:Archtransit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fairchoice (talk | contribs) at 00:49, 2 February 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bead crochet

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

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

Boeing 747 wins FA status

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)[reply]

dyk

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

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

User:Fairchoice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User is not unblocked. User is blocked for 48 hours by ME. Archtransit (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't wikilawyer, it's unbecoming. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user in question was blocked and is still blocked. This is fact, not wikilawyering. There is a big difference between not being blocked and being blocked 48 hours. Archtransit (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • It's not. And anyone familiar with Guy at all--but especially an administrator considering unblocking a recent block by him--should have known that. The barest bit of research reveals that Guy is still active. -- Bellwether BC 21:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the archive, PouponOnToast. Avruchtalk 21:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, AT has conveniently "archived" all of the threads that would alert an interested party to his brief (but numerous) history of bad blocks/unblocks in his equally brief time as an administrator. -- Bellwether BC 21:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No, Archtransit has already used up all the goodwill that is granted for "newbie admin mistakes." This is just one more in a series of serious misjudgments on their part. — Satori Son 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. If you are no longer able to assume that these mistakes are correctable, perhaps Archtransit is not yet prepared to be an admin. Arch, could you detail the recall procedure you would accept? (ref - [1] )PouponOnToast (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conveniently, he made it so that he couldn't be "recalled" through the first 30 days of his tenure as an admin. I think what it will take to get him to stop taking these kind of unilateral actions is an Arbcom. -- Bellwether BC 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any particular rush. What damage can he do over the next +/- 10 days of blocking users who should be unblocked and unblocking users who should be blocked? I believe this action can be correctable by behavior modification. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bellwether, there are ways to go about this without the addition of the convenientlies. That is an assumption of bad faith. Last I checked, you have archives too. And last I checked, being part of the admin group open to recall is conveniently not even required. Stop with the "pitchforks and torches" mentality as it is unhelpful. Your userpage says you are an educator - perhaps you can help educate archtransit instead of throwing him off a cliff? Keeper | 76 22:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Patience is definitely in order for new admins, as there is a steep learning curve. However, a new admin should also be wise enough not to approach that steep curve at 90 mph after a few martinis. It will be much easier to educate etc if Archtransit will simultaneously make an effort to be just a bit more circumspect. May I suggest that you (Archtransit) submit every block, besides those for obvious and clear-cut vandalism, to review on WP:AN or WP:AN/I for the next 20 or 30 blocks? The worst that will happen is that no one will comment, or people will at least give you credit for seeking feedback. At best, you'll get a useful sanity check and backup and repair some of the difficulty people are having with your nascent adminstrative career. MastCell Talk 22:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

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

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

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

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

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

After the fact comments from the blocking adminstrator are categorically not good enough. You are already in hot water. Allow me to go back to your archive and ask you to affirm what someone else asked you to affirm - "are you prepared, from now on, to commit to discussing unblocks prior to implementing these?" I have reviewed the "discussion" you undertook and it was pathetic - you ask an acceptable admin for advice you proffer adviceyou unblock. The word discuss takes two people. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(after modification to the initial statement) I oppose your process. You modified the duration of the block to make it substantially shorter (AKA "unblocked") without engaging in discussion. This is not acceptable ever. That your unblock was ok makes you lucky, not right. Never do this again. Please reaffirm "are you prepared, from now on, to commit to discussing unblocks prior to implementing these?" PouponOnToast (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule that says an admin is required to discuss with the blocking admin, although it is courteous to do so as an assumption of good faith. So the bolded "not acceptable ever" really is an overstatement that is drama looking for a problem. Keeper | 76 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please tell that to people who are blocked, "is it the same as being unblocked?". Of course, no! The user is blocked for 2 full days; he/she is not unblocked. The blocking admin accepts the reduction in duration. "That your unblock was ok makes you lucky" writes PouponOnToast. Not lucky, but I thought there was sufficient doubt by 2 other well known users (Sandstein and Mangojuice) that indefinite block was not necessary. If there were no signs of other well known users, I would have taken a different course of action. My actions were mere interpretations of other's comments. I did not instigate unblocking. Archtransit (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is getting pedantic at this point, but I'm happy to keep repeating myself untill you get it. The unblock request had been declined 2x. It had only been 10 minutes from your first comment on the issue (on a users talk page) to your unblock. This is not sufficient time. You were talked to by scores of people last time you unblocked without discussion. More users are coming out of the woodwork now. You can either continue to defend yourself and we can move forward from there, or you can realize you did something wrong, and take steps to fix your process. Pick one. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, my concern is not the status of the editor here but your actions relative to that status. Personally, I think an indef block might have been pushing it - but two admins declined an unblock, and neither of them determined that a revision of the time period was necessary. Prior to any communication with either of the decliners or the blocking admin, you reduced the block (rather than unblocking, although 48 hours is certainly quite a bit different than indefinite and the net result is an eventual unblock). The lack of discussion is concerning, especially considering your history here and the fact that you had just recently said you would discuss such events prior to taking an action "as a general rule." I would have thought you would be a little more gunshy with this type of thing, particularly since your RfA was ostensibly to allow you to participate more fully in DYK. I think what everyone would like from you here is a clear statement that you recognize you have made errors of judgment (not errors of understanding custom or policy) and that, upon reflection, you have decided to exercise a much greater degree of care in the future. Is that a statement you feel you can make? (I know I said hold up to wait for WJBscribe, and I still think thats a good idea, but I thought I'd include a more complete 2 cents than what I wrote above). Avruchtalk 22:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm going to be a little more blunt than MastCell: what do you mean "I did not instigate the unblock"? You unblocked. You must be able to take responsibility for your actions. Sandstein, Mangojuice, and every other registered and unregistered editor can say whatever they like, but your actions are yours and yours alone. You unblocked an indef blocked editor, after unblock had been declined twice, without any significant discussion with anyone. Its all you, and IMO its a bad call and you're compounding that by trying to shift some of the responsibility elsewhere. Is this clear at all? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main problem is with the "truth-in-advertising" at your RfA. You claimed you would just be using your tools to participate more at DYK. Instead, you're using them to perform lots of blocks and unblocks, with several of them being quite controversial. -- Bellwether BC 00:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is making a lot out of a minor matter. JzG seems happy with the unblock [2] provided Archtransit will be monitoring the user's further behaviour. If the blocking admin isn't troubled by the shortening of the block, this seems to have generated ridiculous amounts of discussion. Archtransit made a couple of bad calls early on. I'm not convinced this is one of them - as with the block of the account for userpage vandalism the other day. It is with regret that I am starting to think some people are looking for Archtransit to slip up, and jumping down his throat the minute they see something that might be qualify as a bad decision. I would hope people would be more supportive, more willing to provide advice than criticism. I suspect that this is a case (like that of Matthew Hoffmann) were the blocking (and unblock declining) admin would have had difficulty persuading ArbCom that the conduct had been sufficiently severe to and down an indefinite block. Should there have been more discussion with the other admins- probably, but I think one should assume good faith that the (re)tired message on JzG's talkpage mislead Archtransit into thinking a prompt response would not be forthcoming there. Has any harm been done? Apparently not. WjBscribe 11:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's difficult to assume good faith when AT unblocked 30 minutes after the initial block, did so after two other admins had declined unblock, and clearly never even looked at Guy's contribs to see that he is, in fact, active. The fact that after the fact Guy didn't have a problem with it is beside the point. AT's unilateral actions have become a pattern, and it's become clear that he wasn't being completely forthright when he said that he just wanted the tools to help at DYK. This bothers me, as it smacks of politics as it's practiced in RL today as well: say what it takes to get what you want, then do what you want. -- Bellwether BC 12:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WJBscribe: To the best of my recollection, I never even heard of Archtransit before this. I had Fairchoice's page watchlisted. I am here because of the one event only. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page images

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

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

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

a friendly reminder about DYK

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

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

Look at me now

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Archtransit&oldid=188501694"