The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

---

Archtransit desysopped (copied from WP:AN)

Since Archtransit became an administrator on January 10, 2008, a number of issues have been raised concerning his blocks, unblocks, and other administrator actions. His conduct has been the subject of a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archtransit, where the views of Archtransit's conduct have been generally negative and his responses generally deemed unsatisfactory. Substantial community time has been expended in commenting on the disputed actions and seeking to improve Archtransit's performance as an administrator, including on ANI, on the RfC, and on Archtransit's talkpage. An admin mentor has expressed further concerns on his approaches [1], and it has appeared that the situation may lead to an arbitration case being presented with a view to desysopping.

Separate from the above, the Arbitration Committee has also received checkuser findings and extensive analysis of editing histories, and has independently concluded by an overwhelming weight of many types of credible evidence, that User:Fairchoice, User:Whoaslow, User:Bqwe123 and User:Lethte, who were variously blocked, unblocked or in on-wiki debate with Archtransit, are in fact sockpuppets of Archtransit himself. Archtransit was asked to comment on this finding privately and his answer was felt to be quite evasive, focussing on why it was better that an accusation should not be made, rather than evidence which might help refute it. Archtransit stated essentially as his defense, that if puppetry had occurred it would still not be a problem since (he felt) no false consensus was created. We do not agree with this reasoning. We conclude that abusive and disruptive sockpuppetry has taken place, involving at times gross misuse of tools. Our conclusion parallels the apparent view of the community that even apart from this, there is insufficient communal confidence in Archtransit's abilities to appropriately use the tools recently granted by the community.

Accordingly, Archtransit is desysopped. He may not seek to regain administrator status without the approval of the Arbitration Committee. All of the sockpuppet accounts will be blocked. Additionally, Archtransit may only edit Wikipedia through one account and any change of account name shall be reported to the committee.

The committee is continuing to investigate whether Archtransit himself may be the sockpuppet of any other user. Evidence bearing on this may be presented either [at the admin noticeboard], or privately to the Committee. Further action will be taken if developments warrant.

By agreement of the committee

evidence summary:

1. Archtransit and the named accounts edit exclusively from the same dynamic range in the same metropolitan area.
2. (Point of information): There are four accounts with significant edits in the relevant area (Archtransit, Fairchoice and two others), as well as a significant number of accounts previously blocked for trolling and socking.
3. Archtransit has claimed to edit only during certain times of day and to have no internet access at other times. Each of the other 3 other significant accounts on this range also edits during the same time window, and also none has any edits from any other location either.
4. A number of the users blocked and unblocked by Archtransit are also users within the same relatively small metropolitan location. This is considered very unlikely to be chance. The administrative actions of Archtransit also included unblocking related accounts that had been blocked by others for "trolling".
5. Further information from checkuser indicates that despite the confounding effect of the dynamic IP, these different accounts are still strongly evidenced as editing from the same connection.
6. In January, on one occasion, Archtransit and another account (Lethte) edited from the same IP within 2 minutes of each other.
7. On January 22,23,30 Archtransit blocked or amended existing blocks of Lethte, Bqwe123 and Fairchoice. These blocks were notable for having autoblock deliberately disabled. Other blocks for cause of other users (other than username blocks) did not have this setting.
8. The edit windows and interleaving strongly support sockpuppetry rather than friends or strangers.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

• (Archtransit | talk | contributions)

---

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

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

Desired outcome[edit]

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[edit]

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 [2], [3], [4]. He has also displayed extremely poor judgment in handling requests for protection [5] and sockpuppetry allegations [6], [7].

Powers misused[edit]

• 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. [8]. 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[edit]

• 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[edit]

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[edit]

1. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Bellwether ^B_C 20:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. ^Avruchtalk 21:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. El_C 22:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Jersey Devil (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this statement[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

1. There is a pattern of unblocking without consensus, which is cause for concern. Addhoc (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
17. Frustrating. Very frustrating. Everyone here wants this to work out with a good resolution - but even the response to the RFC is just...frustrating. --TheOtherBob 19:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Sadly. And the response below, identifying the possibility of a vandal blanking the main page, further indicates a lack of knowledge of the very basic workings of things round here. Pedro :  Chat  22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. The response of Archtransit to the concerns raised in this RfC is unacceptable. He has been completely unwilling to discuss his past mistakes and offer any assurance that he will begin to listen to others, so that these mistakes will not be repeated. Frankly, I find his comments to be verging on the bizarre. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Per everyone. (I almost signed under certify the basis, because I have counseled this user a few times, to no avail) It appears Archtransit just doesn't "get it". He's not blowing up the wiki or deleting the main page but he's certainly upsetting a lot of valuable contributors. I see no evidence of a "deft hand" in dealing with the many many valid concerns raised. If this RfC doesn't give satisfaction, this editor needs to be recalled. I've never actually called for the recall of anyone before so I think that shows I'm fairly concerned. I find the attempted refactoring of this RfC on procedural grounds by Archtransit massively unhelpful as well. ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Seems to show consistently poor judgement and lack of maturity. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Yes, seems like a strong case for community action. Ronnotel (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. I hate that I feel like this is only the beginning of a protracted slide by this user into bannable unhelpfulness to the project. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Unfortunate that this is necessary, but this user needs to understand that the extra admin buttons are not things to be clicked lightly. FCYTravis (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Unqualified for adminship. John Reaves 08:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. What Mr. Reaves said. Grandmasterka 22:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Community made error in promoting; community solves error by demoting; everyone has cocoa before bed. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 23:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Short response to the short/revised/compromise version of the RFC[edit]

There is a short revised RFC on the talk page. With the revisions, my response to the shortened RFC will be a simple (with the full length RFC, a full length response is necessary - let's go for the shortened, revised compromise RFC):

I'm sorry.

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 from a panel of administrators and respected editors and not act without it. Archtransit (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

---

---

Regular response to this long version RFC[edit]

If the revised/shortened/compromise RFC is not acceptable, here is the full length 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
3. Perfectly legitimate block. IP vandalized article and ignored final warning, was blocked a few minutes later. Where is the grounds for complaint? Characterizing this as an issue for an RfC is frankly absurd. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Item 10 block is unreasonable. The editor should be blocked.

Support

#Yes, I have stopped beating my wife. Bellwether ^B_C 19:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC) :This comment is potentially useful. I may change my oppose. Bellwether doesn't seem to be an admin. If another admin agrees with Bellwether, I may follow consensus and block the editor. Archtransit (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Archtransit (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Item 9[edit]

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)[reply]

Oppose

Administrative action is unreasonable. Editor should be unblocked and apology made.

Support

#Yes, I have stopped beating my wife. Bellwether ^B_C 19:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC):Bellwether is not an admin as far as I can see. If there is further support, I am willing to strongly consider unblocking the editor and profusely apologize and even pay compensation in the form of paypal. Archtransit (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the block has already expired, unblocking is a moot issue. I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to segregate feedback into "admin" versus "not-an-admin" categories here. I'll assume you're joking about the PayPal thing. MastCell ^Talk 19:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not joking. If I did something wrong, I will attempt to correct it with discussion, unblock, block, even by Paypal. When I say sorry, it's not just lip service. Archtransit (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We specifically designed RfC to not have threaded comments. Can you just write normal paragraphs instead of these votes? El_C 22:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Archtransit (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Item 8[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. 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)[reply]
3. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

This admin action is unreasonable and Fairchoice should be reblocked indefinitely.

Support

#Yes, I have stopped beating my wife. Bellwether ^B_C 19:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Archtransit (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Item 7[edit]

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)[reply]

Oppose

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

Whoaslow should be indefinitely blocked. Whoaslow did not follow the conditions made by the blocking administrator in that he/she did not edit a reasonably well written article.

Support

#Yes, I have stopped beating my wife. Bellwether ^B_C 19:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Archtransit (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Item 6[edit]

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)[reply]
2. The admin was clearly justified in blocking this vandalism only account. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Just a note: this RfC isn't about each individual case, no matter how much AT wants it to be. It's about a pattern of behavior demonstrated over the totality of the cases as a whole. His attempt to segregate each case for a "vote" is completely unorthodox, and--to my knowledge--utterly without precedent. As such, I've placed protest "votes" in each section. I just thought I'd let you know what was going on in this "response." Bellwether ^B_C 15:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Frankly, your "protest votes" are ridiculous. Do you really think that repeating the same comment across the page was a good way to de-escalate matters or work towards resolving things? Your conduct here is one of the things that has made this a thoroughly unpleasant process. Oh no, he formatted the page in a different way to usual. Shall we hang him now? WjBscribe 15:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   • Wow. Just wow. He creates a completely unprecedented "response" that totally ignores the actual issue (his conduct with the tools as a whole), and you think this is fine? I'll be removing all my protest votes now, as you've used them as occasion to insult me and my intentions. Bellwether ^B_C 16:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. FWIW, I agree. This was a totally valid block. Accounts created to vandalise userpage are not errant new users, they are created by old problem users to cause trouble. They are blocked routinely very day. WjBscribe 15:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Block is unreasonable. The SPA vandal should be unblocked.

Support

#Yes, I have stopped beating my wife. Bellwether ^B_C 19:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC);Oppose[reply]

1. Archtransit (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Item 5[edit]

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)[reply]
2. I disagree with Archtransit performing a block for a pretty harmless userpage edit. Having said that, I endorse Archtransit's description of the event above. Right at the top of this RfC: "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." I find it disappointing that some users are simply trying to find fault with his actions and list them here blindly. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It's an "on-going dispute" in that it involves his misuse of tools over the course of several admin actions. Please stop feeding his "vote on each decision" out-of-process response to the dispute. It's really not helpful, as his approach to the dispute is unprecedented. Bellwether ^B_C 15:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   "Feeding the vote on each decision" - oh get a grip. There is no set rule on Wikipedia that every page must be formatted identically. If there were, it should be ignored. How is this brand of mindless bureaucracy possibly helping here? Archtransit is trying to point out that a number of unrelated matters are being cobbled together to add more weight to a thin case. I see nothing wrong with him trying to do so. Your unremitting hostility towards him is something I'm having trouble understanding. WjBscribe 15:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   On reflection, the above comment is worded far more strongly than it should have been. For that I apologise and withdrawn the parts which now look rather rude. WjBscribe 15:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Guys, I think it might be useful for both of you to step back for a moment and let the heat die down. Everyone's doing what they think is best. WJBscribe, where you see hostility, other people see an effort to stop a misguided admin from running amok with the tools. Far from being a thin case, this is probably the strongest case of "no confidence" that we've ever seen. Friday (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   • I agree, Friday, but as I've indicated at WjBS's talkpage, I'll not be contributing further at this RfC. I truly felt that this response was so ludicrous that a reductio ad absurdum-type of reply was an appropriate response. But I won't have my intentions insulted again. I have endorsed the views I support, and that will be all for me. Bellwether ^B_C 16:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

#No, I have not stopped beating my wife. Bellwether ^B_C 19:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Items 1-4[edit]

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.

This section has been refactored (diff). It was originally split under the two headings "Let's get on with Wikipedia and remove these few nearly one month old accusations" and "Let's not get on with Wikipedia and continue to litigate these old accusations".

Support

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

Oppose

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)[reply]

#Yes, I have stopped beating my wife. Bellwether ^B_C 19:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other issue - A[edit]

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)[reply]

Oppose

#No, I have not stopped beating my wife. Bellwether ^B_C 19:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please identify why this editor has not made useful contributions, created new articles, and toned down comments. If this editor is bad, I want to know about it.

   • No. My "votes" were a protest against your completely unprecedented, out-of-process "response" to the ongoing dispute regarding your misuse of tools. I'll not be informing you of anything regarding any editor, as I do not trust your use of the tools. If I notice Fairchoice going off the rails, I'll notify one of the many admins that I trust about it. Bellwether ^B_C 15:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairchoice has not made useful contributions, created new articles, and has toned down his/her comments in that controversial film article. Fairchoice should be blocked.

Support

Oppose

Other issues - B[edit]

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)[reply]

Oppose

#No, I have not stopped beating my wife. Bellwether ^B_C 19:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection, Item 1:[edit]

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)[reply]

Oppose

1. Whether this was a request for protection, unprotection, significant edits or whatever is an entirely trivial matter. The issue is of your taking the word of a blatant sockpuppet promoting himself over the word of another administrator. – Steel 18:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   One editor seem to state that it was very significant that I mistakenly thought the RFPP was a request for protection. That editor made the same mistake, too. She/he thought it was a RFPP for unprotection. The request was neither. Archtransit (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#No, I have not stopped beating my wife. Bellwether ^B_C 19:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

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)[reply]

Oppose

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

   Endorse. - Philippe | Talk 23:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

3. 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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

4. 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)[reply]

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

   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)[reply]

5. This is a good idea. I would support this as long as both users (the mentor and the mentee) both agree and that the mentor be given final decision over all actions by Archtransit including on when to end the mentorship program... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. --PeaceNT (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. I'm willing to devote some of my not inconsiderable free time towards admin coaching, no probs. I've been at this long enough and haven't screwed up monumentally. I also see the bare bones of a good admin who just needs a push in the right direction and to develop a readiness to admit culpability. I'm willing to help out. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. I trust Riana. Jehochman ^Talk 18:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Addendum: While I'd still like to see mentoring and enhanced cautiousness as the ideal solution, Archtransit is really shooting himself in the foot with a number of his responses here, and particularly by forum-shopping a one-sided presentation of one of the issues to WP:AN. It's getting harder to stand behind my statement above, and I'm leaning more toward striking this and endorsing a stricter statement, as Alison has done. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Endorse. Rudget. 16:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Aye. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Endorse Orderinchaos 02:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^Avruchtalk 01:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
5. Support, as second choice alternative to straight de-sysopping I supported below. Bellwether ^B_C 13:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Partial support I would agree that Archtransit's "after the fact" analysis of each problematic block or unblock shows little understanding of why each was a problem (it's like saying "no one was hurt in the end, so there was no problem") and it shows that he shows no contrition or understanding that regardless of whether his decisions ultimately resulted in no harm, they were still poor decisions. However, even in light of this correct analysis, I don't think a new RFA is a good idea. The mentorship program endorsed by Alison above seems a better solution in my opinion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. Regrettably, I have absolutely no trust or faith in Archtransit as a fellow administrator and his conduct here on this RfC, his bizarre responses, the alternate RfC he presented, and so on has only compounded my lack of faith in his competence and left me with genuine concerns for him and for the community should he be permitted to continue on. Normally I would be in favour of mentorship but I just cannot support it in this case. I think the best outcome would be for Archtransit were to honor the promise he made during his RfA to be open to recall and to voluntarily present himself for reconfirmation. Sarah 22:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yep. I have stuck up for Archtransit – quite vociferously – in at least one case where he was being unfairly criticised. However, the ongoing poor calls (and the equally poor responses to criticism of those calls, including his very unusual approach to this RfC) suggest that a community reevaluation of Archtransit's suitability for adminship is in order. I think we all know what the outcome of a 'reconfirmation' would be right now; I hope that Archtransit has the good sense to resign his adminship until such time as he has demonstrated a better grasp of community norms. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - I think he could yet become a good admin, but I have just seen too many things in the month or so since his RfA to test the waters of good faith. Orderinchaos 02:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. AgreedSpartaz ^Humbug! 05:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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, of the sort regularly blocked by admins (Bqwe123), the reduction of an indefblock which 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)[reply]

   I'd like to agree, but it's just too contentious. (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 (adding) have stirred up a mob more opposition. 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. Nonetheless, the mob needs to disperse. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't know if I appreciate being classified as part of a "mob." Arch has refused to address concerns brought to him rationally and calmly at his talkpage. He has mocked those brought and ceritified the RfC with intentional false dilemmas, and now a "refactored" caricature proposed RfC at the bottom of the real one. Sometimes the unruly "mob" is right and righteous in their indignation. Bellwether ^B_C 21:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. --PeaceNT (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strongly endorse per my view below. Rudget. 18:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. @pple complain 18:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree with this. Acalamari 19:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.[9] 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)[reply]

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.[10] [11] 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)[reply]
2. Not to trivialise everything else, but this is the single most concerning issue here for me. – Steel 18:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Per Addhoc. PouponOnToast (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Friday and Addhoc Achromatic (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
9. I'm not sure the problem is experience but rather an almost willful refusal to accept feedback and advice but this hits the nail on the head. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Yep. While not all of the blocks cited in the statement of dispute were necessarily seriously flawed – #6 was on the money and I reinstated it, while #9 and #10 were iffy but harmless – Archtransit has persistently attracted controversy in his first month with the buttons, and has persistently taken entirely the wrong lessons from the mistakes he's made. His 'revised' RfC below seems to show that he still isn't getting it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Friday has it just so. This user needs to stop, or be stopped from, using admin tools. Voluntary cessation, recall, ArbCom, whatever it takes. Too much effort has been expended already. ++Lar: t/c 13:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Harsh but fair. Archtransit seems not to get it. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. I am afraid so. User seems to cause far to much additional workload, when granting of admin tools is designed to help reduce the workload. Pedro :  Chat  20:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Per Guy and Pedro. GlassCobra 00:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. One expects new admins to be over-cautious, rather than ridiculously reckless. When a new admin is the latter, one must question both the community's judgement as well as the admin's; but the first step is to neuter the admin. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 23:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. I strongly agree with this view. The user simply refuses to abide by any kind of consensus.--Jersey Devil (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArchTransit's accepting statement at his RfA (link) 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 inappropriate 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 judgment, and his defense of inexplicable behavior is, to be charitable, riddled with multiple problems, including dissembling "after the fact" and inadequate explanations. 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 resigning 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)[reply]

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

1. R. Baley (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Completely on the mark. Bellwether ^B_C 13:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
4. This cut-down RfC that Archtransit is now asking us to use as a sign of so-called "compromise" and "give and take" and the other strange and bizarre behaviour going on is the final straw for me. I simply do not trust this user to be an admin. I think Archtransit needs to live up to his promise to be open recall and resubmit himself for a reconfirmation RfA to ensure he still has the trust and support of the community, or we need to seek an involuntary desysop at RfArb. Sarah 01:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. A good summary of the situation. There either are standards that administrators are expected to meet or there aren't. So far it looks as if there aren't. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

1. Rudget. 19:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Withdrawn. Rudget. 21:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple users appear to have gone slightly off the rails. We should leave this alone untill such a time as all contributors can discuss in a relaxed fashion.

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

1. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm off the rails. Unwatchlisting and everything...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make this quite short. My first interactions with Archtransit were quite positive. He promoted an article I wrote on DYK. I mention this only because I feel it shows that I haven't "had it in" for him from the beginning. When he next came to my attention was during the Jehochman and CltFn fiascos. It was then that he began to display the intransigence that has become quite evident in this RfC. He was unwilling to listen to any counsel (especially on the CltFn issue), instead insisting that he was forging a "compromise" of some sort. He never participated in the AN discussion regarding CltFn, nor did he contact the blocking admin before unblocking.

As I've watched the last several issues unfold, I've periodically tried to communicate with him about why people were up in arms about his actions. He has displayed a lack of willingness to even consider that his actions have been less than would be expected of an administrator. This, combined with his behavior at this RfC, leads me to believe that only a deadmin, or a significant restriction of his admin tool useage, will succeed in remedying the situation.

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

1. Bellwether ^B_C 18:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the following resolution to this issue:

1. Archtransit voluntarily surrender the sysop bit
2. Community recognises and congratulates Archtransit on the wisdom of doing so
3. Archtransit may reapply to RfA in not less than six months
4. Archtransit may ask for the bit back in 12 months if he has not applied before then

Happy to adjust times and such, but essentially this amounts to a suspension of sysop for a while, to get more experience, which value of "a while" can be shortened by Archtransit instead going through RfA again, and satisfying the community that all applicable lessons have been learned.

Per comments below, please consider: what are we trying to fix here? Is Archtransit evil? No, there's no suggestion of that at all. What we want, I think all of us, is for Archtransit to be given a graceful way out that he can and will feel inclined to accept. Voluntary renunciation of the bit, and re-granting on request in a year, would fix the here-and-now problem and if the year is insufficient then this will become apparent pretty quickly in a year's time. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this solution:

1. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. I have reservations about #4 but I'd accept this as a workable solution. I'm skeptical that time alone ever fixes these kinds of problems. I'd want to see evidence of actual improvement - the mere passage of time is a poor substitute. However this is still better than nothing; if in the future similar problems arise, we'll deal with them then. Friday (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. All but 4. He should have to reapply by the usual means, not simply ask for the bit back. Bellwether ^B_C 18:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Let me clarify: if #4 is included, I withdraw my support for this solution. I feel strongly that Arch should stand for reconfirmation before the entire community. Bellwether ^B_C 19:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. All but 4. Archtransit should be required to go through the RfA process again no matter how much time has elapsed since his voluntary desysopping. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Endorse except for #4. This RfC qualifies as "controversial circumstances" and just asking for it back, would likely be problematic. R. Baley (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Clarifying wrt to #'s 3 & 4, no need for a minimum time to stand for RfA, anytime is fine by me. #4 is just not needed, as anyone "may ask" anything at anytime. At this time I am opposed to any solution which circumvents a 2nd RfA. A community re-endorsement should be required. R. Baley (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Endorse except for 4, which would probably be a cause of yet more drama. I'm hopeful Archtransit will see the wisdom of this approach. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Endorse with two caveats: #4 (as above), and I kinda think #3 is a bit too long. (I'd say three months - if there are still problems at that point, presumably the RFA will serve as a check on them...but I'm by no means tied to that view.) --TheOtherBob 18:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Endorse including #4. If a year goes by, Arch's name hasn't turned up anywhere in a controversial manner and the other 3 criteria have been met, I don't have an issue with resysopping. Except for #4. It will never get that far anyway because he is a good editor and will likely pass #3. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Endorse 1 & 2. 3 is too harsh. If the community is ready to resysop him them its down to the community to decide when this would be. I'd accept 4 only if it were the only way to get Archtransit to go along with this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Except for #4. An RfA should be required, and a bureaucrat wouldn't +sysop after an RfC like this anyway. ^Avruchtalk 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Except for #4 per Avruch who presents a strong argument. Rudget. 19:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. I would endorse all except for #4, if the mentorship proposed by Ryan Postlethwaite (User_talk:Archtransit#Mentorship) fails. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Endorse one and two but I don't endorse 4 and I'm not keen on 3 because I don't really think there should be a time frame on returning to RFA. Sarah 02:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Please step down. This is the only honourable option left. A little dubious about 4, but meh. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. 1 and 2 certainly: Assuming AT stands down voluntarily, he should be able to return to RfA whenever he likes - it would be unfair to impose any restriction on him more than any other candidate. He needs to use his own judgement on timing and the community is quite capable of considering if its too soon when that occurs. —Moondyne 14:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. 1 and 2 only. I suggest he apply for an admin coach and apply again in a few months - Alison ^❤ 15:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

I'm not sure how this is a "solution" - it seems to me to be a demand for Archtransit to give in to people's demands (especially without #4). It makes him worse off than were ArbCom to desysop him as they would be unlikely to prohibit a new request within a given time frame. I remain uncovinced ArbCom would desysop him based on the evidence against him here. So what exactly is the incentive for Archtransit to accept this? WjBscribe 19:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does an acceptable solution have to offer a tangible bribe? Wouldn't the satisfaction gained from doing the honourable thing be a sufficient reward? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the incentive is that it has the support of most of the participants of the RfC and it would resolve this problem for now. I don't think any other outcome really holds incentives for Archtransit at this point, with the possible exception of Ryan's offer on his talkpage. If that arrangement solidifies, then I can see it gaining significant support (despite the activity under Alison's above proposal). Personally, I would be fine with removing the 6 months time limit - if he passes an RfA, I'm not concerned with when that happens. ^Avruchtalk 19:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with Avruch here. If the community sees fit to pass him at RfA, I don't have a problem with removing the time restrictions altogether. I think he may be well-advised to let some time pass first, but if he wanted to stand for reconfirmation next week, I'd have no problem with that. I just think that having lost the trust of such a large group of respected editors and admins, he should stand for reconfirmation, as community trust is the largest portion of being an admin. Bellwether ^B_C 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Asking him to resign the bit and reapply is quite a blow. Asking him to, in essence, voluntarily suspend the bit for a while, that may be a way out without losing face. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think within a year it will become clear if he's able to learn. I agree with JzG that the reduction in hassle by having a "temporary" suspention of the admin tools is a better solution than either straight mentorship or deadmin. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Better for who? If someone loses (or in this case perhaps voluntary resigns) the bit because they have lost the faith of the community, then they ought not to be allowed to simply to ask for it back once some arbitrary amount of time has passed. Archtransit had his opportunity to prove that he could be a responsible administrator, but he appeared to demonstrate that he wasn't yet ready. Whenever he himself feels that he is ready, then he is perfectly at liberty to initiate another RfA and see whether there's general agreement with his view. If he believes that he is ready now, then the bit should be removed from him asap. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, better for the community, mostly. It seems pretty clear that arctransit is not ready to be an admin. The only way to forcefully deadmin someone (without it being an emergency, which this is not) is through the arbitration committee, and they (reasonably so) are loath to do it. And like it or not, a deadmin arbcom hearing is disruptive, and full of dhramha. This is why I agree with JzG's proposal. My expectation is encapulated under my support of the summary of the problem section. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Little wonder then that so many people, including myself, are losing confidence in the way that wikipedia is run. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't disagree that wikipedia has some serious challenges that are being met with a lot of Cleopatra behavior. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's the difference between a community and a lynch-mob. At work, if someone over-reaches themselves, you don't immediately call HR. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• True, though I've been in a position for the last 12-15 yrs where if I tell someone they have a problem to explain or fix they pretty much have to get on it or it's not HR that gets called (except to give them thier final check). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that something needs to be done here. I'd like to take Archtransit under my wing and offer him strict mentorship. I would immediately require him to stop using his tools. I will then take him through the protection policy, blocking policy and deletion policy in individual steps and slowly allow him to use each of the tools again after I am satisfied he fully understands the relevant policy. After he starts to use the tools again, I keep a close check on his logs and if there's any problems (which there shouldn't be given he is going to learn the policies inside out) I will guide him through them to help him in the future. Archtransit has stated he would like two mentors, so I would propose that Riana is also assigned given her previous offer.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Any plan that gets him to stop using the tools is a step in the right direction. I would recommend focusing more on communication skills than on policies- I think his bizarre ruleslawyering responses did more to damage community confidence than any individual mistake with the tools. I don't like the tacit implication here, though- we're recognizing that he's not competent with the tools, yet he still has them? Highly dubious. However this is more of a philosophical concern than a practical one. If he stops using them, problem solved. Friday (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Per both Ryan and Friday. Bellwether ^B_C 16:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)--Support stricken, per AT's statement about how things happen in "real life" below. He still doesn't understand, he's not a "judge." Blocking admins must be consulted befor overturning their blocks. Period. This is additional drama. I regret making a comment about someone else's comment. Essentially someone said "in real life...". However, I was pointing out that Wikipedia has customs that are completely oppose the usual practice in real life. In real life, consultation about appeals is considered a conflict of interest and being in cahoots. In Wikipedia, a mixed practice occurs. In blocks, consultation does take place. In contrast, ArbCom arbitrators do recuse themselves. Archtransit (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   • The only "additional drama" here is coming from your increasingly strange behavior, and your misapprehension of the problem and the locus of blame for the problem. Bellwether^B_C 20:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Archtransit was correct above, and he is correct in this section as well. Its time to let Archtransit and Ryan get on with the mentorship (pending a definitive statement here that this is concretely agreed upon) and additional bickering is just not necessary. Avruchtalk 20:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree here with Arch, Ryan, and Avruch. I'm tired of this being at the top of my watchlist. Bellwether, it seems you are one of the last to continue to stir the pot here. You've made several posts both here and at Arch's talk, you've been challenged before for your civility in your posts prior to the RfC even opening, (by me on Arch's talkpage), and yet claim later that you've always remained civil. Can't you just give this a rest? I'll get diffs if you don't recall your previous "convenient" comments that were very accusatory, inflammatory, etc. Or we can just move along. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It would be best if you provided diffs at my talkpage regarding anything you feel violated the nebulous "incivility" proviso. I don't take such accusations lightly. Keep in mind that frustration and incivility are two far different things, and accusing people of such things is not insignificant. As for me being the "only one still stirring the pot", I reject the characterization out-of-hand. It's untrue on the face of it, as there are many people that have changed their position, and offered reasons. The only difference is that I restored the replied-to comments that Arch removed. Bellwether ^B_C 21:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It is quite wrong to try to characterise Bellwether as "stirring a pot", or being the last to do so here. I also tried to undo Archtransit's absurd deletions, but was beaten to it by Bellwether. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Diffs will be provided shortly on Bellwether's talkpage, per his request. Please note, I actually agree with BBC and MF. Interesting really how much drahma (the "h" is intentional) this RfC has stirred. I really just want the RfC to go away. I want Arch to accept the mentorship so graciously offered by Ryan and Riana. I want the Wikilawyering to stop and the back-and-forth namecalling to stop. Anyway, the diffs are on the way, Bellwether. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   • For the record, two diffs were provided, neither of which came close to "name-calling" or "incivility." I have responded at my talkpage, but I wanted to make sure that the accusations that I had been incivil were answered here as well. Per the diffs provided, I have not been incivil at all. Frustrated? Yes. Incivil? Definitely not. Bellwether ^B_C 05:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I've purposely let a couple of days pass here. I've recently replied to Bellwether here. I apologize to Bellwether. I struck a portion of my comments there and here that contradict my stated opinion of reducing drama because my own comments have done worse. Apologies. My choice of words "civil" and "incivil" were too strong and not intended to draw to this distraction. I'm the Kettle. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. First choice. Jehochman ^Talk 16:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm in support of any plan that (a) protects Wikipedia and (b) helps Archtransit become a better editor/admin. (I do agree with Friday's suggestion regarding areas to focus on -- but trust Riana and Ryan on that front.) This has been a frustrating issue -- but if this approach works we'll hopefully end up with a fantastic new admin to show for it. --TheOtherBob 16:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC) To be clear, this support was based on the assumption that the mentors would be Ryan and Riana. I'm a little uncomfortable with Arch's idea of proposing a list of names a - besides striking me as a bit side-showish, I'm not sure if you could really get two better options than Ryan and Riana. But, hey, I'm open to anything that works -- so if there are other options that will get us there, I'd support them. --TheOtherBob 01:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Doesn't seem to be listening to Ryan's advice - so I no longer think this will work. --TheOtherBob 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. I'm cool with that. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Edit While risking offending Archtransit, I believe that the attitude and wikilawyering is the biggest issue here, and it'll need babysteps to help break this down. But I'm willing, and Ryan is highly competent. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   {ec} Second choice. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC) No thanks - see comments in oppose. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   But only as a last resort, and with one proviso. That Archtransit immediately honours the promise he made in his RfA to make himeself available for recall, and clearly and unequivocally lays out what the conditions for a recall would be. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I have withdrawn my support for this option because of Archtransit's comments about mentors below. I'm afraid that it looks to me like he has absolutely no idea about what's being proposed, and will likely agree to anything just to keep his admin status. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. A much better solution. I initially offered myself, but I guess it's better to leave to RP and Riana. :) Rudget. 17:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   A fine idea, though I agree with Friday - this shows we clearly don't trust Archtransit with the tools, but he retains them anyway? Still, looks like a decent compromise. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. This is an excellent idea, and I thank Ryan and Riana for offering to help Archtransit. I trust them both. Acalamari 17:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Work for me if it works for Arch. Has he accepted mentorship, Ryan? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Via e-mail, yes. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. I agree with the general feeling that communication and response to feedback are the major areas of concern. Ryan and Riana would be excellent mentors; this sounds good to me if Archtransit is willing. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I have doubts that it will work, but it is worth a try. Mr.Z-man 18:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn. Mr.Z-man 21:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Since Archtransit is apparently unwilling to resign or undergo recall, and a successful ArbCom de-admin is unlikely, I will support this option. I do have unreserved confidence that both Ryan and Riana are excellent choices for such a role. — Satori Son 19:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Support stricken for now. — Satori Son 23:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. I'll gladly go along with this idea. Even before becoming an administrator, I was always in favor of discussion and reaching common ground. That's one reason why my AFD "votes" tend to be much longer than most. They were an attempt to give advice to the author of the soon to be deleted article. The same thing was true when handling disputes between others (trying to establish that the disputing parties actually didn't disagree about everything; that there was a small area of agreement that they weren't thinking of). With this RFC, I was hoping that author of the RFC would also seek common ground with me instead of taking a inflexible, hardline. Some see the lengthy text as wikilawyering but the intent was to examine each of the complaints individually to see which areas there was common ground.

   The idea of having a group of mentors is to increase the chance that one will be available at a given moment. The choice of mentors will be made carefully with Ryan giving good advice on different names so far. Most of the people mentioned haven't even been contacted so give us a few days. Two additional comments will come, one with the list of names and a summary comment.Archtransit (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10. As long as the mentorship process is less disruptive and costly to the community than a drawn-out Arbitration, then I'm willing to support it. As other editors have noted, the mentorship needs to emphasize communication skills and ways to seek help before getting into hot water; if anything, those are more important to Archtransit's education than the letter of policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. But I think Archtransit should be allowed to update DYK, as he does it well and often. Maxim_(talk) 23:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. I think this plan may be the most workable to-date. Both of these admins are top-notch and I trust both of them implicitly. Also, a "pool" of admins, as suggested above, may work equally well. - Alison ^❤ 01:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. Ryan's restrictions seem a little strict, but he's best place to judge what is likely to be effective if he takes the job on. WjBscribe 01:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't seem to be keeping up: "The choice of mentors will be made carefully with Ryan giving good advice on different names so far. Most of the people mentioned haven't even been contacted so give us a few days. Two additional comments will come, one with the list of names and a summary comment. Archtransit (talk)" It isn't for Archtransit to choose his mentors. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

14. Support. Archtransit seems to have good intentions, even if his execution has been attrocious so far. Both Ryan and Riana are excellent admins, and I trust their judgement in educating him, and deciding on whether or not he is making progress. Mentorship seems reasonable at this point, and we can revisit the idea of desysoping at a later date, if Ryan and/or Riana feel that it is appropriate then. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary:

1. Have to admit I'm not keen on mentorship anymore. I would have been all for it days ago but I think things have gone way too far and he's damaged his name, credibility and reputation far, far too much now to hang on to the bit without being reconfirmed. If this was just about the tools and his incompetence and misuse of the tools then I'd be fine with mentoring but we've seen how far past that he is with his rewritten "compromise give and take" RfC, the very wacky attitude and behaviour and the bizarre comments and, most importantly IMO, his profound inability to comprehend and understand what has been said to him by anyone. I trust you Ryan with mentoring, this isn't about you, but I don't trust Archtransit at all. I don't really like being the only one to oppose a last ditch mentorship but I do believe that this is going blow up in our faces and be back before the community; it's just a matter of time. And so for that reason I'd rather be down here. No offense Rudget, but you've only been an admin for about 3 weeks (minus your break) and so you're way, way to young an admin to take on a mentorship of this nature. It absolutely has to be very experienced, long term admins. Also, it would be nice if Archtransit could write a statement in his own words outlining what his understanding of this mentorship program etc, what he intends putting into and what he hopes to get out. Sarah 19:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   • It was with relunctance that I supported this solution as well. It was Friday's support that did it for me. AT is so intransigent in the face of community criticism, that I think this would go to Arbcom, and I'm not certain they have the stomach for this right now, what with the current contentious cases on their docket. This seems to be a "way forward" that would limit any potential damage from AT's misuse and, quite frankly, misunderstanding of the tools, while avoiding the added drama of an Arbcom case. Bellwether ^B_C 19:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   • It's purely practical. I support this not because I think it's the best solution, but rather because I think it's better than nothing. And "nothing" is exactly what we're going to get, otherwise. He's reneged on his recall; what else can we do? We don't have the right tool for fixing problems this like. So we do the best we can with what we do have. Friday (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, we do, and it's not even controversial given the input here, but it's not kind either. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. I agree with Sarah, I hope you proove me wrong. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'm not convinced either. Look at how he acted yesterday on User talk:Ecoleman56, yet another inexplicable case of intervention in favour of a clearly disruptive user. Okay, he didn't unblock him, but his comments show that he would have been inclined towards doing so if he hadn't been held back by his current restrictions. I really don't feel comfortable with the idea of having Archtransit anywhere near situations where he'd be making judgments about other users' behaviour, such as blockings, unblockings, 3RR, page protection and the like. To Friday: I do think that Arbcom is still an option. If Arbcom is shown that an admin has lost the trust of the community, they must desysop them, no matter whether the reason for that loss of trust is one single blatant offense against admin policies, or a series of dubious incidents like we have here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   That does, once again, seem to show extremely poor judgement. I am also becoming less and less convinced that a mentoring programme would be effective, particularly as the rules seem to be changing about who will actually be doing the mentoring. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   This could be seen as indicative, as well, but I think AGF would require us to view this (and possibly some other borderline cases) as the result of the normal acculturation of a new admin, rather than the continuation of the pattern. I am somewhat coming around to the view argued by WJBscribe - specifically, that some instances have been blown out of proportion because they are seen as part of the pattern of poor judgment. I don't think excluding the borderline incidents (such as the Ecoleman56 one) materially effects the basis for the RfC, and it removes the feel of pile-on criticism. ^Avruchtalk 01:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Perhaps "pile on criticism" is the only thing that may help to resolve this situation. And let me remind you that AGF does not apply in a case where incompetence has been demonstrated, and is continuing to be demonstrated. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually I rather suspect that piling on criticism has never resolved anything. And someone shouldn't forfeit the right to AGF just because they makes a few mistakes. Has it even occured to you to give the guy some space and the benefit of the doubt? WjBscribe 01:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   No, it hasn't. You f**k up, you pay the price. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Incompetence does not negate the assumption of good faith. Only a demonstration of bad faith does this, and I haven't seen any evidence of such a thing presented here or in my observation of Archtransit. Therefore, I will continue to assume that he acts in good faith and with the benefit of the project in mind. It is his judgment that is at issue here, not his intent, and as I said above - I think some of the more minor issues presented here demonstrate not poor overall judgment but the inevitable lack of experience of a new administrator. We should dispense with these, and focus our attention on the matters of greater concern. ^Avruchtalk 01:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Then please explain to me the apparent confusion surrounding who will actually be mentoring Archtransit. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   How is that even related? I don't think its confused, I think it isn't completely decided. It looks like it is assumed to be Ryan, but Archtransit hasn't specifically indicated either way on-wiki. ^Avruchtalk 01:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   You just don't seem to get it. It's not for Archtransit to decide who his mentors are, it's for the community. The proposal was for two named mentors, both apparently well-respected. Then it changed to a list of names, from which Archtransit would pick a few he liked. If you believe that to be an honourable way to behave then I'm afraid that there is really little point in us continuing to discuss this farce. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   At this stage in proceedings, I don't really think he has much choice as far as his mentors go. It's been discussed with him, and he's happy with it anyway - I just hope we can finally get on with it. At this stage discussion isn't helping things or moving them forward. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually Ryan's proposal doesn't seem to have changed. You seem to be making a lot out of the fact that Arch proposed a variation but he doesn't seem to have rejected the proposal. Commentators here may still clearly support Ryan's proposal (as I have just done) - doing so would seem to me to be a pretty clear message to Arch about the form other users would like the mentorship the mentorship to take. If agreement can't be reached on how the proposed mentorship would work, people can take the matter to ArbCom if they wish. WjBscribe 01:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm so sorry. Perhaps I ought to have asked to borrow your rose-tinted spectacles, the ones that only allow you to see what you want to see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   That is simply not a helpful or constructive comment in any sense, and I'd encourage you to strike it. MastCell ^Talk 17:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   That was an accurate representation of my opinion, which I am more likely to repeat than to strike. I am not in the least bit concerned whether you or anyone else finds it unhelpful or unconstructive, it remains my opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Changed my mind. Mentorship will be useless here. You can't teach someone clue they haven't got. Resign. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. At any regular business, Archtransit's bizarre behavior would earn him a trip to the boss's office for a quiet talk and at the very least a reassignment of responsibilities. Ronnotel (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Real life comments that don't pertain to RFC striken: I don't agree with this assessment. Wikipedia is also not a regular business. For example, in real life, an appeal is conducted by an impartial panel or judge. Lower court judges are never asked "may I overrule your decision?" So in real life, review of a block would intentionally not include any discussion with the blocking administrator.comment added, then struck, by User:Archtransit

   Wow. Ronnotel (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   To update, I am excited about having Ryan as my mentor (or whatever term was used). I'm trying to assemble some respected people to act as an advisory panel, a sort of back up for unusual decisions, confirmation of Ryan's advice (if it seems strange - probably won't occur), or if Ryan has a stroke. If you have suggested names, leave them on this RFC talk page.Archtransit (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)I have re-added AT's comments, as it's incredibly confusing to simply remove comments that have already been replied to. Strike them if you must, but leave them up for continuity's sake. Comments striken because Bellwhether prohibits removal. Confidential discussions which were from e-mail from more than one person were accidently included. Archtransit (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   This is becoming increasingly bizarre. Have you not read Ryan's mentorship proposal, the one that people have been expressing an opinion on in this section? Where does it mention any kind of an "advisory panel" to confirm Ryan's advice to you? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   At the risk of opening up a can of worms, I thought Riana was the second admin mentor. Why not go with that? I guess a panel is fine if that's what people want - but the feedback I'm seeing is "two admin mentors: Ryan and Riana" -- I'm not seeing the need for a drawn out selection of any sort of panel, committee, or whatnot. Why not just accept Ryan's and Riana's guidance and be done with it? --TheOtherBob 19:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose, per Arch's comments above, and my explanation for striking my support above. It's clear to me that, mentor or no, Arch still doesn't get it, and he doesn't even get that he doesn't get it. Bellwether ^B_C 18:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. This latest gaffe about removing some of his postings because of "secret negotiations" is the last straw. Archtransit doesn't seem to have the slightest clue about what's going on. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. (changed from support) Archtransit's recent behaviour around this RFC has been bizarre to say the least and they don't seem to understand what mentorship is about. I'm afraid that it is doomed to fail and we wll;l be in front of arbcom sooner rather then later. Its obvious that Archtransit is not going to do the decent thing and resign so I'm afraid that the next step is arbitration. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. I had doubts about this from the beginning. I really don't think this is going to work. Mr.Z-man 21:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose, sadly.This is easily the strangest RfC I've ever seen. Archtransit, while I can't help but admire you, on some level, for attempting to control the manner in which each detail of this situation unfolded--an admiration which would stem from your refusal to lie down and be kicked--I'd have to say as well that through your methods, you've caused yourself more trouble than you've averted. From the absolutely incomprehensible formatting of the "response" section (which prevented myself (and, I would guess, many others) from even being able to gauge what you were trying to say, let alone from formulating any response) to the insistence on responding to each negative statement (often digging yourself a deeper hole in the process) to your repeated misunderstanding, despite many explanations, of the terms of the proposed mentorship, it seems you've unfortunately managed to make the situation even worse. Sometimes the best course of action is to listen to the charges against you and nod your head, and then go home and tell your significant other/sibling/best friend/parent/dog how utterly, completely, jaw-droppingly WRONG your accusers are. But even if they are wrong--even if every single action was justified--the argument has now passed that point, and moved into the area of perception. If you're perceived as being unapologetic, defensive, and intractable, every action you perform thereafter--no matter how beneficial or correct--will be viewed through that lens. You're a valued contributor--no one has denied that--and even without the mop, you can still be a benefit to the 'pedia. But unfortunately, I think it's come to the point where no matter what you do, your reactions during this RfC will be cast back at you for quite a while--and remaining an admin will probably be much more hassle to you than it's worth. To boil it all down at last: If you give up the admin bit on your own, you will still have a chance to get it back. But if this goes to ArbCom--and I suspect that's just where it's heading, thanks to that "perception" thing--your chances of ever getting re-adminned drop to approximately "hell no". And that's AFTER the gigantic drama-scene that an ArbCom inevitably becomes.Gladys J Cortez 06:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. If he hasn't gotten it, after all this time, how is more hand-holding going to make him get it now? Send this to ArbCom. It will make things easier and hasten the inevitable. Grandmasterka 22:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archtransit has expressed his view that the mentorship is voluntary with no "rules" to violate, despite having agreed to the proposal as written above which includes those "rules". He has unblocked a user, on a claim of consensus on AN that is hard to credit. He has claimed that one user criticizing him should focus on other admins, who are "Nazis when it comes to blocking." (Just to be clear - Nazis are responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people. Not for blocking users on Wikipedia). I'd like Riana and Ryan to comment here on whether they think that mentorship can reasonably be continued at this point, and under what circumstances mentorship will be ended and conflict resolution on this issue will move to the next step. Avruch ^T 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it clear to him today the consequences of hiom overstepping the mark again. I hope he does understand now - I'll take it to arbcom myself if he makes one more admin action when he's been asked not to. With respect to the Nazi comment - that's being delt with off wiki via email because it's not the sort of discussion you want to be having on wiki. But I'd like to continue - we're making real progress with respect to the protections, and I think we'll soon be able to move forward even further. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take it to arbcom myself if he makes one more admin action when he's been asked not to - in other words, if he continues conduct unbecoming an administrator, you'll report him to others who, after some long time, might really tell him not to do it again or they will get very annoyed next time. I'm not, it must be said, over-filled with confidence at this plan of inaction. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 19:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could see this working, maybe - It's possible Arbcom would look at the RFC, find that there's consensus for him not to have the tools anymore, and go ahead and pull the bit based only on that. We do need some better way of nipping these in the bud- these kinds of problems get worse over time, not better. Friday (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our record on detooling unsuitable admins is actually very good. They tend to go very quickly and with little argument, immediately after causing trouble. This case is the unusual one - we've bent over backwards to provide rope, but still ever more is needed because the issues still exist, as Avruch reports above (specifically, another bad unblock). Even more unusually, we've detooled in the past for behaviour related to poor use of the tools, but this is the first case of actual poor use of tools exclusively. Nobody disputes that Arch is a good editor, but he has rarely used the tools well. It's the use of the tools, and just the tools, that is the problem. And we're just extending more rope. Now with threats that, if he doesn't buck up, we'll really do something next time. Huh. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my recollection, this is true only of emergency desysoppings. When you've got a problem that isn't an emergency, I don't see that we have a good track record. It's happened either not at all, or months after any reasonable person could see it was the best solution. Friday (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who supported the idea of mentorship above, I'm wondering now with the benefit of perfect vision how it was ever decided that mentorship was the right path as it does not seem to have ever gained consensus in the first place. Mentorship just kinda happened. Arch himself says the mentorship isn't official because this very RfC isn't closed, and therefore doesn't have to abide by the mentor's explicit instructions to not (un)block anyone? Reviewing the above discussion, there were 14 editors in good standing supporting mentorship, 11 editors in good standing against it as either too little, too late, or both. *sigh*. Why the unblock arch. Why? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too supported the idea of mentorship above, and I too have qualms. I figure, though, that Ryan has a good head on his shoulders (my God! What happened to his neck?!) and will know when to pull the plug. Both Arch and Ryan have gotten an earful from the community about Arch's latest adventure with buttons, and I gather than Ryan has taken this opportunity to inform Arch in graphic, explicit detail what will happen to him if he strays from the mentorship again.

As a suggestion to Ryan and Riana, I'd urge them to consider de-emphasizing the rules-based, technical approach to adminship that they're working on now, and try to better acquaint Archtransit with the essential communication skills that admins need to have in order to be effective on Wikipedia. Levelling accusations of 'bitey'ness and 'trolling' in response to concerns about a bad unblock seems over the top. He actually has the chutzpah to suggest in his very POINTy AN/I report that the other editors are 'being disruptive and trolling', and notes that 'Others have been indefinitely blocked for trolling before'. Seriously? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am being accused of a pointy ANI report. However, so far not a single one of the 1,400 administrators have written that the unblock was wrong and the user should be blocked. The consensus is for me and against your view. Sorry. Archtransit (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, we can't move onto communication and other non technical issues until we're positive of the basics. There's been some good dialogue with him regarding protection and hopefully for a start, we can get him using that. The more intense issues will be covered with blocking (which we purposeuflly haven't moved onto yet, because we have to get the things that are easier out of the way first). I know when it's time to stop this, and when that point comes, I'll be straight over to WP:RFArb filing a reuqest. I don't think we're at that stage quite yet because I've heard a lot of positives from Archtransit over the past 10 days which makes me think there's something inside him. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was he not told to stop using the tools and slowly reintroduce them as part of mentorship, rather than being told, as it appears, to keep using the tools as he sees fit and then deal with the criticism and dismiss it as he sees fit? The mentorship seems to assume that the criticisms are wrong and he is being misunderstood. As fluffy and nice as that idea is, it flies in the face of the evidence. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 21:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but when have I told him to keep using his tools? I've told him numerous times to stop using them, and we're discussing each aspect of adminship individually, before me and Riana will allow him to use one tool at a time when we are positive he fully understands when to use it. If you're really interested, see User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Mentoring/Archtransit for what we've been doing. Since the mentorship started, he's made one admin action despite being told not to, and to be frank - I laid down the law over it, I've told him that if he does it again, I'll take it to ArbCom. I'm not sure where you get the idea that we've told him to carry on using his tools and dismiss all critisism as being wrong because that's false. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you have confidence you can be helpful, I imagine you'll keep trying. This is fine- it's your choice; nobody else has to agree it has a snowball's chance in hell of working. But can you make removing the tools be part of your plan also? It's a fine thing to try to teach a baby not to hit himself with a hammer, but take the hammer away first. Friday (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Archtransit has completely jumped the shark, and now appears to be seeking out a bigger shark and a faster boat. Where does it end? Archtransit, with your ridiculous ruleslawyering, you've lost any hope of ever having the trust of the community ever again. Will you give up the tools now, pretty please? Friday (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship was never going to work. Arch has been consistently insistent that he has never done anything wrong. With no element of doubt, there's nothing to mentor. I believe he actually bought into the whole "joining the cabal" bollocks - once given the tools, he was given licence to use them at will as he saw fit, just like everyone alleges that we admins do. Except we don't. Poor use of tools is either slapped down very quickly or is reason for detooling. We admins may occasionally be controversial, but we're given the same licence to do so as every editor is - as much as to make the 'pedia work, as little as to not be disruptive. There are indeed admins who are close to the centre of some forms of disruption, but the ones who stay admins don't use the tools in that disruption (no matter what the sociopaths who inhabit WR say). What they do use is seniority - if you've been here 4, 5, 6+ years, you know the ropes and use them. What Arch has is the tools. What he doesn't have is seniority. Sadly, he thinks one == the other. Alas it doesn't. And as we all equate admin tools with seniority, so we've been busy leaving him to use them unwisely, because this RfC doesn't apply to him until it's finished. It's all so very sad. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.