Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archtransit

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC).

---

• (Archtransit | talk | contributions)

---

Statement of the dispute

Archtransit has displayed consistently poor judgment in handling blocks and unblocks.

• Archtransit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Desired outcome

For Archtransit to either resign adminship, or make a binding commitment that he will refrain at least from using the block and unblock tools.

Description

Archtransit, recently promoted to adminship (10 January 2008), has demonstrated an exceptional amount of poor judgment in handling both blocks and unblocks in the three weeks since. Out of little more than a dozen blocking cases he has been engaged in, no fewer than ten are bad. Archtransit has repeatedly failed to discuss matters where he would have been obliged to do so, and in several cases he has displayed a bizarre understanding of standards and practices of adminship in discussing his blocking decisions after the fact [1], [2], [3]. He has also displayed extremely poor judgment in handling requests for protection [4] and sockpuppetry allegations [5], [6].

Powers misused

• Blocking/unblocking (log). Note that most of these are not necessarily downright violations of the blocking policy (though at least those of Jehochman and Stawiki definitely were). Most are just applications of deficient judgment and poor reasoning, but very persistently so:

1. Jan 11: Oni Ookami Alfador (talk · contribs). This user had been blocked in a routine 3RR case by User:Nakon. Archtransit unblocked a mere ten minutes later, "for compassionate reason", without seeking feedback from the blocking admin and without noting the fact that the user's unblock request showed no sign of remorse or understanding of how the revert-warring was bad.
2. Jan 14: Jehochman (talk · contribs): Archtransit blocked this experienced fellow administrator for 12h, in a blatantly punitive block in response to a technical decision made by Jehochman in another blocking case, which Archtransit believed was a misapplication of blocking policy. Archtransit was widely criticised for this decision, but his later comments reveal a persistent failure to grasp what was wrong about it.
3. Jan 15: Stawiki (talk · contribs). Constructive new user was section-blanking on a BLP article in a legitimate attempt at enforcing BLP, explained as such in edit summaries and on talk page. Blocked by Archtransit for "vandalism". Unblocked by himself after error was pointed out to him, but this comment shows he had made the block in an irresponsible effort at finding someone to block, as if adminship was a race of who can block first.
4. Jan 19: CltFn (talk · contribs). User had been indef-blocked by User:Jersey Devil for "exhausting the community's patience", after a related discussion at ANI. Archtransit unilaterally reduced the block to 7 days, allegedly as a "compromise" between those who had favoured the band and some who he thought had been critical of it. He did not seek feedback either from the blocking admin nor on ANI before making this unilateral call.
5. Jan 22: Lethte (talk · contribs). An account with a single, nonsensical edit, writing "I will sue you" on its own user page. Obviously not a serious legal threat, since the sentence was evidently not directed at anybody specifically and not related to any identifiable dispute. Archtransit indef-blocked the account two minutes later for NLT.
6. Jan 23: Bqwe123 (talk · contribs). An account with a single contribution, a trivial piece of userpage vandalism on Archtransit's own user page. Was warned immediately by a bot and then - an hour later - also by Archtransit himself. Made no further edits during that time. Archtransit indef-blocked two minutes after his own "final warning". Unblocked the account later, after advice and protracted discussion of blocking practices by fellow admins.
7. Jan 26: Whoaslow (talk · contribs). An obvious WP:ANI trolling throwaway sock, this account was indef-blocked by User:John Reaves. An unblock request was declined but met with an offer of a "second chance" by user:Nat (a rather strange choice, given the fact that this offer by Nat completely ignored the reason for the block, namely the account being a sock. Thus, in this case the poor judgment is not entirely on the part of Archtransit.) The sock complied by drafting a decent-looking small article (an easy task, given there was obviously an experienced user behind it), and Archtransit then unblocked it, claiming he was just implementing the decision by the other admins, but without seeking feedback from the original blocking admin, and again without in any way commenting on the original block reason.
8. Jan 30: Fairchoice (talk · contribs). An obvious single-purpose troll sock (recognisable from its expert first edits and its immediate tendentious activities on intelligent-design related articles), this account was blocked by User:JzG. Archtransit shortened the block from indef to 48h, only an hour later, after two other admins had declined an unblock, and without seeking discussion with the blocking admin, pretending he thought JzG was "retired" (how could he be if was making blocks just an hour ago, and was in fact actively editing during that hour?)
9. Feb 3: 99.237.233.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). IP, with no prior history, was engaging in section-blanking vandalism, making 12 section blankings on the same article in 3 minutes. During those three minutes, it got immediately reverted and rapidly got several warnings up to final level. Immediately after the final warning, the IP stopped. Archtransit blocked it 45 minutes after it had fallen inactive, thereby violating usual blocking practice. Strangely, even while blocking the IP, he left a comment to it that implied the IP might have been acting in good faith, thus making the block doubly illogical.
10. Jan 23: 117.195.161.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Similar case as above. IP had been on a very brief vandalism spree, stopped after warning, blocked by Archtransit long after the fact and with a confusing message.

• Protection:

1. [7]. This case displays a bizarre lack of understanding of the situation. A request for unprotection is made by an obvious abusive sock of a banned user. Archtransit seems to think it's a request for protection, rejects it for the bizarre reason that the sock's opponent (who he unquestioningly assumes is the troublemaker, taking the sock's word for it!) is an admin and would be able to continue editing under protection (a breathtaking assumption of bad faith, claiming that the other admin would be prepared to break protection policy.) In the following discussion, Archtransit displays an inexplicable eagerness to help the obvious sock.

Applicable policies

• Blocking policy

1. Lack of consultation with fellow admins, unilateral decisions, punitive block in the case of Jehochman, unnecessary/useless blocks in the case of the IPs, frivolous unblocks despite clear evidence of disruptive intent in the case of the troll socks.

• WP:CLUE

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Multiple threads on Archtransit's talk page:

1. User talk:Archtransit/Archive 1#Here we ago again
2. User talk:Archtransit/Archive 1#Strong suggestion
3. User talk:Archtransit/Archive 1#Your block of User:Stawiki
4. User talk:Archtransit/Archive 1#Block of Jehochman and beyond
5. User talk:Archtransit/Archive 1#RE: Block of Jehochman and beyond
6. User talk:Archtransit/Archive 1#please explain
7. User talk:Archtransit#User:Fairchoice
8. User talk:Archtransit#David Saks

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

1. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Bellwether ^B_C 20:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
3. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
4. ^Avruchtalk 21:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
5. El_C 22:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

1. There is a pattern of unblocking without consensus, which is cause for concern. Addhoc (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
2. It's larger than just unblocks. The troubling pattern here is bad decision making with unsatisfactory explanations of his actions, made worse by a failure to learn from the now large amounts of criticism he's gotten from many many editors. This is Betacommand all over again. This problem should be nipped in the bud before it continues. Friday (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Friday has (as usual) identifed the key issue. Its ok to make mistakes but to continue to make the same errors without learning from them is inexcusable. Responses to concerns raised have (on occasion) been defiant which doesn't suggest Archtransit is open to feedback. That is a serious concern. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Archtransit appears to be hubristic. The cure is decisive action to remedy the concerns, such as Alison's proposal below. Jehochman ^Talk 21:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
5. The above is a good summary, and even though I've been watching this since the first incident it includes problems I wasn't aware of. I was unfortunately the first to mention the possibility of recall, and while it may have been premature then it is perhaps not so premature now. ^Avruchtalk 21:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
6. I really don't want to be doing this. I've been a supporter of Archtransit's on his talkpage for a couple of the links provided above - in the interests of both reducing drama, but more importantly acknowledging the learning curve that comes with new adminship (being one myself since 1/15/08). Each "event" listed by FPAS, on its own, whether it be a block or unblock, does not merit this formality. But the weight of the evidence in toto makes me regretfully agree and endorse this procedure. Sorry, Arch. Seeing Jehochman's endorsement sealed the deal for me, as he seemed to be most understanding regarding his own block by you, most gracious in his desire to help you along, and in light of these circumstances seems to want only good things to come from you. Me too. My greatest hope is that what will come out of this RfC is the ultimate avoidance of Arbcom and the avoidance of desysopping. It really is in your court right now to acknowledge these grievances presented here and agree to follow whatever results from the activities therein. Cheers, Keeper | 76 21:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
7. There's certainly a pattern of bad practice here, though some cited examples are much more innocuous than others. The bottom line is that adminship has a steep learning curve, and Archtransit has approached it at 90 mph after a few martinis. He doesn't need to be desysopped, but he needs to be much more circumspect with the tools, especially now that he's under the magnifying glass. MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
8. I endorse the summary as a whole, though there was too much made of the Bqwe123 block when it happened. It is odd to give a final warning 2 minutes before an indef block, but putting that aside, I have no problem with blocking a user, who's first edit is to find a user page or user talk page and then vandalize it. In general however, AT doesn't discuss controversial admin actions beforehand, and afterwards, his responses have not been reassuring that like controversial actions won't happen again. R. Baley (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Struck mitigating comments. De-sysop ASAP. R. Baley (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
9. I'm reluctant to call for a desysop, but Archtransit has done a very bad job of responding to concerns about these blocks. It would be enough if he pledged to stop using the block/unblock buttons, or took this RfC as an opportunity to acknowledge that the community has legitimate concerns about his behavior. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
10. I strongly opposed any sort of recall or formal process such as this after the Jehochman block hoping that Archtransit would learn from his mistakes and stay away from controversial decisions for a while. Recent events have made it apparent that he has used very little of the advice he has received after each situation and does not seem to see many/any of these situations as mistakes at all. Mr.Z-man 22:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
11. While I am opposed to de-sysopping as an outcome at this stage, I certainly endorse the substantive issue here. Archtransit showed an astounding lack of good judgement in accusing me of "damaging Wikipedia" when I revealed the good-hand of a checkuser case involving abusive sock-puppetry, in which an admin was outted who had exercised her right to vanish per privacy and stalking concerns. The edits ultimately required oversight. Rather, he suggested I instead cover up the matter suggesting, "If you ever need someone to discuss matters with socks, let me know. I am willing to do this sort of work. I am an admin.". Shockingly, he then went on to berate the admin who was outted, and is also a checkuser clerk, for doing a bad job of clerking on the case, ostensibly blaming her for the matters involving the Jehochman 1-minute block. Later, he said, "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.". As ever, User:WJBscribe summed up the situation rather well here - Alison ^❤ 00:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
12. I've been deeply concerned about Archtransit since I became aware of the block on Jeh and have followed his activities since then with great concern. I think the bad blocks/unblocks are forgivable as newbie admin mistakes but what has concerned me most is his responses and comments which, in my view, reflect a profound lack of understanding of policy and our culture and community standards. I'm regret having to say this, but I simply don't trust Archtransit at this point and do not have any faith in his competence as an admin. Sarah 01:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Frustratingly, ArchTransit's response to this seems to have been most telling - rather than acknowledging any possible cause for a RFC (even with disagreement), he immediately tries to claim the RFC is invalid as filed, breaks it up into several cases as per his reckoning, and goes from there. Achromatic (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
14. I don't know whether I am suppose to include my opinions here, but my view will be added below within an hour or so. Rudget. 16:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Concerns listed above look to be justified. I don't really like to say this, but some of the stuff isn't due to ignorance or lack of time as admin: some of it is just plain thick (blocking Jehochman, the Memphis page protection incident, blocking a user with one odd edit for NLT - a block which I have reversed). Mistakes are fine - god knows we all make those - plain incompetence is not. Desysopping would be not unjustified: at the least, Archtransit should enter into an agreement whereby he clears all blocks, unblocks, protections and unprotections with another, more experienced admin before acting. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Unfortunately, I witnessed all of these things as they were going down, and sadly have not seen any change of behavior. As Archtransit received his adminship at the same time as me, I tried to avoid becoming too embroiled in a situation involving an admin who has the same experience as I do, however it has gone on long enough. It is with remorse and no joy that I do endorse the above assessement of the situation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

I support Alison's statement. However, I can't add support there because the rules above state that I can only comment in one section.

Note:
The requirement for RFC is that they must be of the same dispute. Therefore, it is necessary to consider each of the allegations.

Item 10: Editor received warnings from Majorly and Cometstyles, both well known editors or administrators. Case listed on AIV. All 5 of the IP's edits were blanking sections of the article.

I followed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism (WP:VAN). Prior to this RFC, nobody ever explained to me why this is action is wrong.

Remove this accusation. Reasonable block.
Support

1. Archtransit (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
2. . Support removal. This block was 14 minutes after the "final warning", not "long after" as was stated by Fut.Perf. Keeper | 76 23:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Powers misused. Editor should be unblocked despite the fact that nobody has unblocked.
Support

Oppose

1. Archtransit (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Item 9

Item 9: Editor received multiple warnings. Editor was reported to AIV. Editor is a SPA with no other contributions other than blanking text in one article. Reports to AIV is a request for an administrator to take action.

Prior to this RFC, nobody has ever brought this to my attention.

Remove this accusation. Reasonable block.
Support

1. Archtransit (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Powers misused. Editor should be unblocked despite the fact that nobody has unblocked.
Support

Oppose

1. Archtransit (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Item 8

Item 8: The blocking administrator (JzG/Guy) does not object to reduced duration of the block. Neither does another who reviewed the block (Sandstein) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein#block_review No objections; thanks for notifying me. Sandstein (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fairchoice 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. Since the block has expired, the editor has edited very constructively. (Guy)

Therefore there is no dispute between the blocking administrator and my reduction of the block duration.

Remove this accusation. Reasonable reduction in block duration.
Support

1. Archtransit (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Powers misused. Editor should be blocked despite the fact that nobody has blocked.
Support

Oppose

1. Archtransit (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Arch made a good faith unblock here that (so far) has proved to be the right call, as backed by the initial blocking admin. Keeper | 76 23:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Item 7

Item 7: The block was reviewed and conditions set for unblock by administration User:Nat. Addhoc seems to say that the blocked user has complied with the terms set by Nat. Therefore, I unblocked based on the editor fulfilling the terms set by others. Since then, the user had edited very constructively.

Therefore, removed this accusation. Reasonable unblock.
Support

1. Archtransit (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It's usual practice to speak to the blocking admin. Addhoc (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Powers misused. Editor should be blocked despite the fact that nobody has blocked.
Support

Oppose

1. Archtransit (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Item 6

Item 6: The user is a SPA whose sole edit is unmistakable vandalism. Many support the block. Since there are a few dissenting opinion (possible due to those people not liking me and wanting an excuse to condemn me), I unblock and allow another administrator to block.

Remove this accusation. Block is reasonable.
Support

1. Archtransit (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Item 5

Item 5. No legal threats are taken seriously at Wikipedia. This user has a clear legal threat. Other users have been blocked for less than clear legal threats. For example, User:Reneec is noted by others to have not made a legal threat but a threat. The editor has been blocked. This user's legal threat is clearer. Nobody has previously objected to this block prior to this RFC.

Remove this accusation. No previous discussion before this RFC. Nobody said sorry to the editor and requested that he/she be unblocked. If there was genuine concern for this editor, there should have been comments prior to this RFC. Since there are none, this suggests that there is not genuine concern for the editor but that the case is used as an excuse.
Support.

1. Archtransit (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Powers misused. Editor should be unblocked despite the fact that nobody has unblocked.
Support

Oppose

1. Archtransit (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Items 1-4

Items 1-4. These were actions less than 10 days after the administrator was granted sysop privileges. There are some substantial arguments or explanations. All of these actions were almost a month ago. Given the wisdom that I have now, I would have handled things differently. Prolonging the debate for these older items is counterproductive as it creates a contentious situation. Sometimes it's better to keep Wikipedia's best interest in mind by not arguing one's position and getting back to the business of the encyclopedia.

Let's get on with Wikipedia and remove these few nearly one month old accusations.
Support.

1. Archtransit (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get on with Wikipedia and continue to litigate these old accusations.
Support.

1. Here's my problem. My main problem is that I can't oppose you without saying I don't want to get on with Wikipedia. You state in your rsponse above that you would have handled things differenly. You've been offered help, offered coaching, defended by many editors, and still problems keep coming up (right or wrong). I've been an admin for 5 days less than you and I've yet to be the subject of even one of the 10 things brought up by Fut. Perfect. I really really want to defend you! If only one, or two, or even 5 of the accusatioins above were founded, I'd be right behind you. But 10? This is killing me! In my opinion, Wikipedia's "best interest" is better served without this drama and I know you agree with me. You've been asked very patiently and ad naseum to get a coach, stop blocking without talking first, stop unblocking without notifying the blocking admin....to no avail it seems. Instead of working with others, my impression is that you have a philosophical idealism about what you think Wikipedia should be instead of what it is. I agree with most of what you say. I've already supported several of your blocks as justified or noncontroversial (including #9 and #10 here). However, there is only one common denominator in the drama, Arch. To say "Let's not get on with Wikipedia and continue to litigate these old accusations completely undermines other editors' opinions. To me, it's like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?". One man's opinion here, submitted in good faith. Keeper | 76 00:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Archtransit (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Other issue - A

Since the block has expired, Fairchoice has made useful contributions, created new articles, and has toned down his/her comments in that controversial film article.

The above is true.
Support.

1. Archtransit (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is a %*!@ing lie.
Support.

Oppose

1. Archtransit (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Other issues - B

Since being unblocked, Whoaslow has created a new article and has generally behaved.

The above is true.
Support.

1. Archtransit (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is a %**!ing lie. Ban Whoaslow.
Support.

Oppose

1. Archtransit (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection, Item 1:

Protection, Item 1: This case is so confusing that even the RFC author misunderstands the request. The request is NOT for unprotection. There is a separate section for that. Since the editor bringing this RFC failed to understand the RFPP and since every single endorsement of the statement failed to catch this error, Archtransit should be excused from misunderstanding that the RFPP was to add edits to the article, not for page protection.

Several editors, including experienced administrators, failed to see that this item was not a request for unprotection as the RFC mistakenly claims. This is a source of potential confusion.
Support.

1. Archtransit (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Overall

I support Alison's proposal but answering each complaint is ok if done so as not to ignore the RFC author. Archtransit doesn't want to ignore the RFC author. The RFC instructions does ask for a response.
Support

1. Archtransit (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Suggestion by User:Alison

Rather than requesting de-sysopping or moving on to ArbCom at this early stage, may I recommend that one of the outcomes be that Archtransit be placed with an experienced admin of good standing, for admin mentoring? I think that if he was to defer to a mentor for certain admin actions for a fixed period of time, that this would be invaluable - Alison ^❤ 22:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that this has been suggested to Archtransit on a number of occassions. ^Avruchtalk 22:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Blargh! Given that he's still defending the indefensible above after my posting of this, I'm striking my support for my own suggestion. He obviously still doesn't get it, so this is unlikely to work. Sorry - Alison ^❤ 03:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Support (if I get to pick). I have seen some names of administrators who seem like good people but have not interacted with them much or at all. Archtransit (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Striking out only because I am supposed to respond in the above section and once I do I'm not suppose to comment elsewhere. Striking out my statement doesn't mean that I revoke it. I support it. Archtransit (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Arch, who exactly are you thinking of? Please incorporate this in your "response" above. Keeper | 76 22:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

1. What about User:WJBscribe, if he's willing to be a hands-on mentor? Archtransit's response (or lack thereof) to feedback is probably the major issue. If that can be addressed and he's willing to be more careful in the future, I don't see a need to go any further than this. MastCell ^Talk 22:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
2. I really think that we shouldn't bring ArbCom into this, nor suggest desysopping; that would be too harsh. Rather, an experienced admin with time on his/her hands (If WjBScribe's not too busy, he would be a great choice) should mentor him until he/she is sure Archtransit will be able to handle things on his own. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Endorse. - Philippe | Talk 23:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

   I would support this if its WJBscribe. Will is clearly unhappy with this RfC, and I'd be willing to vote to close it if Archtransit would agree to have his admin decisions actively mentored. ^Avruchtalk 23:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

   I would not support this if it is WJBscribe per his comment here. I support a number of other adminstrators, however. PouponOnToast (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC) No longer acceptable. Defending the indefensible in response. PouponOnToast (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

4. I would say not WJBscribe, as he was the nominator of Archtransit's RfA, and therefore may be perceived as biased. Please note, I'm not saying that WJBscribe is biased or would act in a biased manner, just that the perception may be present as such. Keeper | 76 23:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

   A way out of trouble. This option should not be subject to procrastination, the way recall criteria has been. Decisive action will hopefully end the drama (that has been my experience). Jehochman ^Talk 23:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

5. Good idea as long as the person is acceptable both to Archtransit and others involved. It would need that person to be given a bit of space to work with Archtransit so that advice is being delivered clearly with one patient voice. That would solve a lot of the "information overload" problems I am sensing have hampered past efforts. WjBscribe 01:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

   Are you recusing yourself of this task, WJBscribe? Keeper | 76 01:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

6. I've been an administrator for a time period near equal to that of AT, so I probably still don't know alot of things, however I would be willing to offer my advice if the situations were to continue in a similar manner. That is of course presuming the offer still stands. Rudget. 16:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

View by MastCell

I'm sorry to be here, because I recognize that adminship is a difficult and perplexing role, especially at first. But there is a real issue here that was not being adequately addressed. Everyone makes mistakes (I've made more than my share), but the problem is when you draw the wrong lessons from those mistakes. I'm not so concerned with a unilateral unblock here or a bad block there; it's the response to feedback that I'm concerned about. Because JzG didn't raise a stink about the unblock and User:Fairchoice hasn't been overly disruptive in the last few days, Archtransit feels his actions were justified. That's exactly the wrong lesson to take away. Similarly, I can't help but feel that he still considers his block of User:Jehochman to be a principled ethical stand rather than a sizable mistake.

I wish these concerns could have been addressed in other forums, but they really did not appear to be taken seriously. In fact, the problematic decision-making processes seemed to be defended and reinforced. This doesn't have to be a punitive or public-stocks type of process, but it is important to note that there actually is a problem - otherwise it's unreasonable to expect things to change.

The recall criteria are a problem. They need to be up and running yesterday. Archtransit indicated at RfA he'd be open to recall. Recall criteria need to be in place before you start placing highly controversial and dubious blocks on other admins, not at some indefinite point in the future.

I don't think there's any reason that this needs to go further than RfC. Certainly Arbitration would be extremely premature, unless the Committee has come down with a relapse of test-case fever. I think an ideal solution would be:

• Archtransit formulates and posts recall criteria before performing any further administrative actions
• Archtransit is willing to consult with a more experienced admin before doing anything potentially controversial for the next few months, and is willing to attempt to reach the blocking admin before undoing blocks forever (like the rest of us)
• And finally, Archtransit is willing to start slow and work up to more potentially controversial actions. The learning curve is real.

That's all it would take, from my perspective. MastCell ^Talk 00:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

1. Endorse. Rudget. 16:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Aye. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional view by Avruch

I've struck my support of the admin mentoring suggestion above. Archtransit's response above, and to each individual event at the time, demonstrates that he simply does not understand why others have disputed his actions. The complaint is substantive and based on a pattern of behavior - no one single event has prompted this process.

WJBscribe has said that Archtransit hasn't been given a fair chance - perhaps (and this is my thought) as a result of undue scrutiny following his block of Jehochman. WJBscribe is a valued and respected member of this community - but unfortunately, I disagree with his view here. If this process centered on a single mistake, or a small number of mistakes over a period of time, that would be the case. If Archtransit had expressed contrition and an understanding of the sort of interaction we expect of an administrator and still faced undue criticism, that would be the case. But Archtransit has made mistakes with consistency - and after each new episode, he has failed to respond adequately.

Archtransit has expressed his belief that his critics are against him; this is not the case. I am not (and I don't think anyone else is) against Archtransit and I value his presence for all of the contributions that earned him success in his recent request for adminship. However, I request that Archtransit again submit himself to a process where the continued trust (or lack) of the community can be demonstrated. Specifically, I recommend a reconfirmation RfA with a prominent link in the nomination statement to this request for comment. ^Avruchtalk 01:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. support, although I detest "reconfirmation" RfAs. What is the likelihood of that passing? Zilch. Unless it happens three months from now....Keeper | 76 01:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

   Apologies, I refactored the statement after your support vote. ^Avruchtalk 01:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

   I still support your statement, but thank you for the notice. Keeper | 76 01:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Agreed. Defending his unblock of Fairchoice based on after-the-fact discussion proves he doesn't get it. Discussion happens before the reversal, not after, except in cases of obvious error. PouponOnToast (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Based on the responses here it does not appear that this RFC will have the desired effect and I doubt the efficacy of some of the other proposed alternatives. Mr.Z-man 03:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
4. I have no confidence in his present judgement and no confidence that he will listen to others and learn to do better. Archtransit, please do the honorable thing and resign as an admin and reapply in a later RfA. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support, as second choice alternative to straight de-sysopping I supported below. Bellwether ^B_C 13:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

View by WJBscribe

I have to say I feel we've reached this point too quickly. Archtransit became an admin on Jan 10th 2008 and made two spectacularly bad calls early on - the block of Jehochman and unblock of CltFn. The first without policy based justification, the second against a clear consensus otherwise by other admins. I raised issues with him on both those matters and tried to explain why he had misinterpreted the block policy, failed to assume good faith of other admins, and failed to take efforts to reach consensus. Those incidents concerned me and worried me that I may have nominated Archtransit for adminship too soon. I had done so understanding that he would mainly be involved in work updating DYK, for which he had a lot of experience and would take things slowly in other areas. Had I realised he would launch himself into other areas head first, I might well have recommended more time gaining experience of those more contentious areas. At that point however, the best idea seemed to be to let Archtransit learn from errors and move on - give him some space. It is with regret that I saw others did not do that. I worry that confidence in Archtransit was so eroded by those early misjudgments that people started looking at Archtransit's admin action already expecting them to be problematic. The number of people who jump down his throat when they think there may have been a mistake is worrying - I'm not sure someone could really take in all those comments and I think we may have a case of "information overload". It seems to me the following things need to be achieved if Archtransit is to settle into being an effective admin (something I hope we all agree would be the optimal outcome for the community):

1. People to give Archtransit a little more space. Give him some time to learn and develop under guidance. If someone has already given him the advice you intended, don't pile on. Its easier to hear one voice than many.

   Looking at some of the items above they seem a mixture of issues. The early v poor decisions (Jehochman, CltF), an account created to vandalism a userpage - not a new user, regularly block by admins (Bqwe123), the reduction of an indefblock I doubt Arbcom would have endorsed judging by their comment in the Matthew Hoffman case (Fairchoice), and minor block errors I regularly see admins make that normally attract no great drama (99.237.233.70, 117.195.161.56).

2. Archtransit needs to make sure he has listened to the concerns raised. And he needs to give an unequivocal sign that he understands the issues and is prepared to address them. The more clarity here the better - how does he propose to change in future?

I don't think the problem is severe enough that desysoping (or an agreement not to use some admin tools) should be considered. The question is how Archtransit can be helped to learn and how the community can be convinced that he is learning. Ideally all this could have been done with a little less drama.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

1. WjBscribe 01:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

   Agree. (I think the drama is caused by the languid responses, not by bad faith criticisms.) Jehochman ^Talk 01:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC) I am striking due to Archtransit's highly defensive attempts to wikilawyer out of this controversy. A better approach would be to accept responsibility, unconditionally, and take decisive action to show the community that the pattern of behavior will not be repeated. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

View by Jersyko

My experience with Archtransit is very limited, and I have no knowledge of problematic blocks and unblocks issued by Archtransit. However, I decided to comment, briefly, because our interaction is noted above in the "trying and failing to resolve the dispute" subsection. (Perhaps this would be more appropriate under "outside views", then?)

In short, my interaction with Archtransit over the last two days has left me rather frustrated. As clearly seen at Archtransit's user talk page, three experienced users (including myself), including two administrators, provided ample evidence to Archtransit that a user was indeed a sockpuppet of a user that was indefinitely blocked for a legal threat and that, in any event, all relevant discussion on the issue of one Mr. David Saks ended in August of 2006 with an absolutely clear consensus. In response, Archtransit insisted that the 2006 discussion was the real issue (regardless of whether this was a sock), and that the question was still open. Archtransit was not involved in the 2006 discussion and admitted having no knowledge of it. Nonetheless, Archtransit continues to assert that further discussion is necessary.

Additionally, Archtransit appears to believe that the right to vanish protects users who were indefinitely blocked for legal threats and that they should be allowed to come back under a new user name and engage in the same discussion which they were involved in leading up to their block.[8] In contrast, I would call such behavior sockpuppetry in violation of a block with absolutely no relationship to RTV. This interpretation of RTV, which would essentially give any blocked vandal, spammer, miscreant or other litigious individual the ability to come back to Wikipedia regardless of whether they have been blocked previously, demonstrates poor judgment.

My advice for Archtransit is to please exercise more caution when dealing with a dispute among users that you have no prior experience with. Additionally, I would encourage Archtransit to more closely examine all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to gain a more nuanced view of their contents and implementation.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

I'm afraid I do not know enough about other problematic editing or decision-making by Archtransit to make a suggestion regarding a solution to this situation. Thus, general advice is the best I can do. · jersyko talk 01:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

1. I also have had no contact with Archtransit outside of this particular issue, but his attempt to re-start a long-resolved debate has likely inflamed an already difficult situation by encouraging the editor to continue his one-man war to have his favorite song included at Memphis, Tennessee - he's already returned to the same dispute under multiple IPs, thanking Archtransit profusely for his help.[9] [10] I'd encourage Archtransit to review the policies on blocking and sockpuppetry and think carefully before assuming that fellow admins have used blocks or bans to avoid settling a policy-based issue. -- Vary | Talk 17:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

View by Friday

To those who suggest that further advice, education, or mentoring are the solution.. you're suggesting the one course of action that we already know to be ineffective. Archtransit has had no shortage of feedback from other editors about his use of the admin tools. It's OK to make mistakes, but he's continuing to be way too bold (and too often, boldly wrong.) Our first priority should be damage control- he should stop using the admin tools. Then, he can spend all the time he wants, working with whoever is willing, learning how to use them properly. But step one needs to come before step two. Friday (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Archtransit's response says that he now possesses wisdom, and simultaneously defends his unblocks in which he made no effort to liaise with the blocking admin. By all means try to find a solution, however I tend to agree with Friday. Addhoc (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Per Addhoc. PouponOnToast (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Per Friday and Addhoc Achromatic (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
5. I can also attest that many others, myself included, have attempted to give Archtransit sound advice on how to solicit opinions from others and act collaboratively rather than unilaterally. Unfortunately, such advice has not been followed. — Satori Son 13:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
6. I will support this as a distant "third option" behind straight deadmin or new RfA. Bellwether ^B_C 16:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Stop using the tools until someone gives him the go-ahead for each action, yes. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Per Moreschi's comments. He needs to stop now and consult with someone with a lot more experience - Alison ^❤ 17:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by R. Baley (talk)

ArchTransit's accepting statement at his RfA included, ". . .If I don't know something, I know where to consult. " and among his answers to what he would do as an admin, "the title of admin gives some the impression that admin are special ambassadors." However, his unremorseful, unapologetic, and innappropriate use of the tools to date, do not indicate that he is an ambassador for WP. Furthur he stated that, ". . .I have been in edit conflicts. However, I turned conflict into non-conflict." While that may be true as a regular editor, this has not been true as an administrator. Further, he also went on to say, "If an editor needs to be blocked, I intend to act like an ordinary editor and seek an admin’s help. . ." See the Jehochman block. . .this does not ring true. I'm sorry to have to be so harsh, but the WP editors at the RfA were mislead, and his statements are not reflective of what he ultimately decided to do, or of his intentions, as far as I can tell. He has also stated that, "I plan to list myself as open to recall because it's one of the ways to encourage responsibility and good behaviour in administrators." This has been delayed, and put off for over a month now, and in my opinion, it is because, from the beginning, that through his actions, he has made recall a virtual certainty.

I've tried to be understanding, and I have tried to see his point of view. But ArchTransit just doesn't "get it". He needs to be de-sysoped . . .or there really are few to no administrator standards at all. He has given little reason to trust his judgement, and his defense of inexplicable behavior is, to be charitable, riddled with multiple problems and dissembling "after the fact" and inadequate explainations. Other editors, including administrators, have tried to reason with him, *multiple times*, to no avail. ArchTransit should resign the tools, as that will be the ultimate, probable outcome here. I urge him to not drag it out, until it has to go to ArbCom. By resiging here, he may reduce the drama; almost anything else, only prolongs the inevitable. With the utmost regret, and sincerely, R. Baley (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. R. Baley (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Completely on the mark. Bellwether ^B_C 13:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
3. The RFA results, being based on information now known to be incorrect, should be thrown out as invalid. But who can do this? The crats won't touch it; the promotion was already made and we haven't given then a clear community mandate to correct mistaken promotions. Arbcom is the other possibility, but if history is any indicator, they'll touch this case only after another several months of Archtransit running amok with the tools. This case is a poster child for some means of desysopping short of arbcom. Archtransit, please do the right thing and honor your recall commitment. There's never been a case with clearer support than this. Friday (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

View by Rudget

Since I arrived here back in April 2007, it's been apparent to me of the discussions that are prevalent on Wikipedia, those that determine what happens and even how something should happen, are significant in there magnitude, and this is no different. I first went through the request for adminship process back in October 2007, and to explain in brief, it divided much of the opinion and it was closed as no consensus by Deskana. There was however one user that was prepared to entake my position and assist further in my "wiki-development" and to ensure that I was unlikely to fail for a second time, this user being Jehochman. I don't know the true in's-and-out's of what behaviour each administrator/bureaucrat is added on to here, however I do still achieve a sufficient enough opinion to make comment, when applicable, on their judgement taken - whether that be through a usertalk page discussion or a RFC, this one being rather premature in my opinion. Jehochman has shown good qualities from when I first recognised him as an administrator back in October(?) still however I was reserved on the attitude of him, but despite this, I wouldn't go making AN threads or the like, because it didn't seem that bad. On the other hand, I still don't understand why he was blocked, was it a misunderstanding on behalf of Archtransit in the discussion before the block or just something else? Or maybe I've just assumed that either way. Elsewhere, I believe Archtransit demonstrates good consensus-building and has shown consistently high judgement in those other areas which are excluded from the above reasoning for this RFC, albeit in a small minority. I am inclided to agree with the statement with WJBscribe, who I don't personally see as having a COI with this RFC. The only sanctions I see as of such that could be imposed on Archtransit are:

• To ask Archtransit what is most important to him - adminship or editing-, as this would seem to indicate a rather lack of an attempt to become more integrated with administrative actions (even though I can see that these actions which have been pointed out may have affected these somewhat)
• To restrict Archtransit to DYK actions, because of this being a main rationale for the RFA nomination in the first place. I remember WJB commenting on Archtransit's talkpage quite a few times before the RFA and I knew to an extent what was coming (i.e. the promotion) about DYK, however, I don't know whether this is available or not.
• For people to refrain from making comment on AT's talkpage after he's done something (okay, not everything, but most things, even if they are incorrect) - by being told what you've done wrong and in the self-process of determining what that may be, you are inclined to make mistakes as AT has done. I don't condone or endorse those actions that have occured, and I'm not as happy just as everyone who has endoresed this RFC, however I do believe we are still in the second chance phase, and by being so, I am willing to grant Archtransit one last opportunity to prove that the DYK writer who has been criticised so much (albeit correctly) shows the community what he can really do. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and so we need to encourage more people who are willing to involve themselves in content-related administrative tasks (even if there has been an apparent lack of so far) and have the correct manner for this. Rudget. 17:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

• Regarding my above certification, I have participated in a couple of the attempts to reason with Archtransit about his admin actions (particularly his unblock of Cltfn, but others as well), all to no avail. It's become apparent to me that nothing other than formal action will get through to Archtransit. Bellwether ^B_C 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• I've never seen an RfC response that is a series of votes. ^Avruchtalk 01:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• That seems a bit dodgy to me as well. The cases are specifically not intended to be considered separately, as none by itself would require a deadmin. But considered together, they add up to a person who is not ready to use the considerable tools at the disposal of an administrator. Setting up a "vote" on each individual case seems a way to simply try to avoid dealing with the larger issue of how AT is using the tools as a whole. Bellwether ^B_C 15:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with the format necessarily. He was presented with 10 individualized "issues" as evidence in list format and responded to those ten issues in list format. It's a matter of interpretation really. Had he been given a paragraph full of issues, he may very well have responded with a paragraph full of responses. What has soured me is the phrasing towards the end of the items. In "other issue A" and "Other Issue B" using $@*% style explitives doesn't help whether it's meant humorously or not. And he uses a logical fallacy that makes it impossible to support a sanction without being the bad guy "Let's not get on with Wikipedia"?. Have you stopped beating your wife? Keeper | 76 15:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Question to the community

I am entirely for progress and harmony. Sometimes this means stressing the areas of agreement above all else.

What happens when some of the accusations are not right? Agree to it even if it's not correct? If this is the Wikipedia way, let me know. The RFC lists some recent actions that I think are entirely reasonable. Some of the more recent ones received absolutely no complaint or comment before yet they are listed as one of the complaints?

Is this RFC wikilawyering by using the lawyer technique of making all kinds of accusations in the hopes that a few will stick? Or is it trying to "jump down his (my) throat" as one bureaucrat said?

An RFC with the early issues I can understand. With listing of all these later items, I am forced to either plead guity to everything, even reasonable actions or look like I am resisting. This is why the items are broken down.

Tell me that the recent items violate policy and are bad actions and Archtransit can learn. Most people have not made any comments under my responses (items 1-10 and a few others). This is where RFC comments can be useful. Let me know which items you support or oppose and make this RFC a true learning method. Archtransit (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My answer on talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

False dilemmas are present throughout your presentation of 1-10. The concern (expressed over, and over, and over, and over) is that you do not engage in discussion before taking controversial adminstrative actions. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness after the fact, you must engage in discussion before taking controversial adminstrative actions. Provide a "regardless of the appropriatness of the actions, archtransit should have engaged in discussion before taking the action," under each, and you'll see almost everyone pile on. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Off topic here. PouponOnToast, please do not use an edit summary of response of the community unless you've gone around to every talkpage, solicited responses, analyzed the results, compiled the data and presented the results. Your opinion may or may not be that of others. Your edit summary should be response of Pouponontoast. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Item 9 and 10 controversial and require consultation??? Archtransit (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible resolution of RFC?

There seems to be 20 different opinions. To try to lump them all together is a possible insult to those that have some nuanced difference.

I tend to favor looking for common ground. The common ground that I see (or assume) is that we all favor improvement of Wikipedia, following of Wikipedia policies, and consultation. Often, administrator omit consultation. Sometimes it's for actions where the conclusion seems to be obvious. I pledge to do all three of the above for the next 3 months and not omit consultation. Even in the case of a vandal blanking out the main page, I will seek consultation and not act without it. Archtransit (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• If that means "For three months I will not undertake any administrative action until another admin has cleared it first", fine. Maybe. Three months is too short a period of time and I would prefer you to step down and go back to RFA anyway. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• I don't wish for anymore drama, but I too believe an RFA would be a good step. However, I am willing to be persuaded in favour or not, because of my position on the fence. Rudget. 17:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)