Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archtransit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Honest question

Should this RfC be posted somewhere as a notification (I'm thinking WP:AN) if it hasn't already? Right now, the only editors commenting (including myself) are involved parties. Keeper | 76 21:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not involved. I have RFC/U watchlisted. Spartaz Humbug! 21:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I don't think extra notification postings are normal procedure. Posting it on RFC/U and on the subject's talk is usually considered enough. No objection if you want to carry it to AN though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about an AN post myself. Not a bad idea on the face of it. Avruchtalk 21:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for the input. I won't personally be crossposting anywhere but I would be agreeable to the initiator (Fut. Perf) doing exaclty that if anyone feels that it would bring about a better consensus or more thorough comments, although fair warning that it may also increase teh drahama. And sorry, Spartaz, I made an assumption there - you haven't been involved as of yet. Cheers, Keeper | 76 22:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CLUE

WP:CLUE isn't a policy, should it really be listed in the "applicable policies" section? Mr.Z-man 22:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I admit I noticed that too. But then again, surely it is policy that admins should have a clue. Is it written somewhere in a more quote-worthy form? I suppose not... Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Admins should have a clue. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Category:Admins who have a clue. Jehochman Talk 23:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The redlinks should suffice as proof that it isn't. Keeper | 76 23:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It should be though. Sometimes common sense must be legislated... Keilana|Parlez ici 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It is: Wikipedia:Common sense. Jehochman Talk 23:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh, you both linked to the same essay. El_C 02:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Archtransit's questions

Well, making a start here myself, as I was the one listing those cases: let me first clarify what I probably ought to have stated more clearly from the outset. I don't, of course, consider all these cases as equally bad. The blocks of User:Lethte, User:Bqwe123 and the two anon IPs weren't really harmful blocks. They were just unnecessary, useless blocks. The likelihood that your blocks caused collateral damage, or that they silenced someone who would otherwise have become a good contributor, is quite low. However, the likelihood that your blocks succeeded in preventing any further imminent disruption from these accounts is equally low. Chances are they had absolutely no effect either way, because these were inactive accounts/IPs at the time you blocked them. These blocks look like meaningless activism by somebody who is just desparately out to find some occasion to block someone, just to try out their tools. That's what some of your earlier comments implied too.

More worrying than the blocks themselves are the accompanying talk page messages. You first warn, then you block anyway. That makes the warning meaningless. These users had stopped vandalising on being warned. At the same time, you give self-contradictory or downright false messages with your block notice. Here you say: "Many administrators would consider your actions vandalism and would attempt to prevent you from editing Wikipedia indefinitely". This is doubly nonsensical. "Many administrators"? So you yourself didn't consider those actions vandalism? If not, why did you block? And of course, it is simply not true that other administrators would attempt to prevent an IP user from editing Wikipedia "indefinitely" for a single short vandalism spree. Why build up that strawman? – Similar with the other blocks.

As for the rest, I stand by my criticism of the unblocks of Whoaslow, Fairchoice and your inexplicable advocacy for the Saks sock. All of these three are 100% abusive socks, most probably of banned users. The fact that the first two are also able to write a decent-looking article when they want to show off how well they can behave doesn't change this obvious fact. I reserve the right to re-block these if necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: Note that this posting by Archtransit on WP:AN only adds to the confusion. He is now claiming I asked for the unblock of the latest anon blocking case – a ridiculous idea, as the block has obviously long expired. He still fails to understand what this is all about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. It's highly discouraging. MastCell Talk 19:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm.. although I support Archtransit there is a becoming sense of failure in my efforts. Rudget. 19:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I know I said I wasn't watching anymore. I wasn't. I went AN next. Cripes, Arch. For the record, I also construe this series of obviously loaded questionsas a more subtle form of forum shopping, if not just plain pointy. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. He makes a straight deadmin look like the best option the more he refuses to even admit there might be a problem, and shops forums for support. Bellwether BC 19:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refactored from Q to community

My answer on talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
False dilemmas are present throughout your presentation of 1-10. The concern (expressed over, and over, and over, and over) is that you do not engage in discussion before taking controversial adminstrative actions. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness after the fact, you must engage in discussion before taking controversial adminstrative actions. Provide a "regardless of the appropriatness of the actions, archtransit should have engaged in discussion before taking the action," under each, and you'll see almost everyone pile on. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Very on topic here. He asked for feedback from the community - but he's not going to get it when he wants the community to sign statements saying "Let's not get on with Wikipedia and continue to litigate these old accusations," to disagree with him. I'll use any ironic edit summary I want, TYVM. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::And the community is giving feedback. Yours, mine, dozens. But for you to say "response of the community" to your paragraph is unnecessary drama-pushing. I agree with your sentiment with "let's not get on with Wikipedida..." - I was the first to reply to that. But I didn't say "this is everyone's opinion". I said it was my opinion. YWVM. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this conversation is admittedly off-topic, it is not appropriate here and should have been started on the talk page. — Satori Son 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You are of course right. So stricken. My apologies to Pouponontoast. You meant no harm, I've reacted too strongly. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Item 9 and 10 controversial and require consultation??? Archtransit (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
No. Item 9 was fine but unncessary, item 10 was a hamhanded talk-page message that should not be repeated. Passive voice much? PouponOnToast (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (to ArchTransit) More obfuscation. You set up false dilemmas ("Are you still beating your wife? Yes or No"), and expect anyone to give you anything resembling constructive feedback? Read the concerns. There is a mountain of constructive feedback to be had there. And various editors have tried to help at your talkpage as well, and met with similar resistance, which caused the need for this RfC. Bellwether BC 18:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Answers to false dilemmas

I have answered each (I think) of the false dilemmas proposed by AT, in a manner I feel appropriate to the tenor of the option given. Bellwether BC 19:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. – Steel 19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Now AT is treating my protest of his specious false dilemmas as actual requests for unblock, reblock, etc. He's also forum-shopping. This is very illuminating. Bellwether BC 19:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latest shenanigans

Archtransit's re-posting of the whole RfC in a watered-down caricature version [1] is unfortunately only the latest in a row of unconstructive moves. But anyway. As for his proposed outcome ("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."): the hyperbole in his wording makes it obvious that he is still not drawing constructive conclusions from all this. For an admin to act like that would basically be just another POINT violation. But most of all, the whole idea of supervised adminship or whatever one might want to call it doesn't work out. Admins are made admins in order to get work done. To get work done, they must be trusted to make reasonable decisions on their own. Its exactly this trust that Archtransit no longer has. An admin who knows he isn't trusted to make reasonable decisions and who has to run to other admins for advice for each decision he wants to make, doesn't get work done, he creates more work for others. This is what admin school is for. But that comes before attaining adminship, not after. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems uncharacteristic of Archtransit. Is there a situation with account security? Rudget. 20:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't seem likely. It's more like he's been growing ever more upset since this RfC was created. I see a gradual rather than a sudden rise in the drama level of his contributions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
True. It is with regret that I agree. I'm sure this RFC has deteoriated the situation further, was it necessary to obtain the aims wanted in your opinion? Rudget. 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see any better way how it could have been done. Some kind of decision had to be forced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (EC) It doesn't look like he is taking this seriously and his attempts to recast this RFC suggests that he has no interest in learning from the experience. I really feel that he can't be trusted with the tools if he is going to carry on with this kind of behaviour. He doesn't seem to be getting the hink. What is the next step? ARBCOM? Spartaz Humbug! 20:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Seeing as how he is evidently quite upset right now, I think the best thing will be to give himself and us a rest of at least a good night's sleep first. But if nothing better is forthcoming then, yes, I can't see how Arbcom can be avoided. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. In the meantime, we may want to find an experienced, uninvolved admin to review the situation here and refactor this RfC if necessary. Or do you think that would needlessly stir the pot? — Satori Son 20:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You might consult with User:Lar. His username standards for Levelheaded And Reliable. Jehochman Talk 20:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>*What about adjourning for 12-24 hours. On both sides. No more shoveling from Arch, no more piling dirt from et al. When you are getting hit with arrows from every direction, stung by bees from all around, it is quite understandable to start flailing around madly. Every time Arch edits something, he is getting hit from all sides. That's not fair to any editor, any admin, or any human. Any supporters wanna go go out for tea?. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Supporters: (sign with ~~~~)

This RfC would indeed benefit from a calmer approach from all involved. This is not an emergency and we do not have to make an immediate decision. Some comments have been distinctly unhelpful and only increased drama. Time for a pause for thought and reflection. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • AT has shown a distinct lack of willingness to listen to even the most constructive of criticism. I was patient throughout my dealings with him. Even with his out-of-process unblock of Cltfn, I wasn't what could be called "angry." It wasn't until he began mocking those bringing the RfC with his specious false dilemmas (and now his complete caricature of the RfC with his "refactoring" of it) that I truly felt a bit of anger with him. Even then, I expressed it only through an equally specious set of "votes." I perhaps should not have done that, but I don't feel it was over-the-top at all. Bellwether BC 21:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion (Refractored by ElC)

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

  • Regarding my above certification, I have participated in a couple of the attempts to reason with Archtransit about his admin actions (particularly his unblock of Cltfn, but others as well), all to no avail. It's become apparent to me that nothing other than formal action will get through to Archtransit. Bellwether BC 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've never seen an RfC response that is a series of votes. Avruchtalk 01:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That seems a bit dodgy to me as well. The cases are specifically not intended to be considered separately, as none by itself would require a deadmin. But considered together, they add up to a person who is not ready to use the considerable tools at the disposal of an administrator. Setting up a "vote" on each individual case seems a way to simply try to avoid dealing with the larger issue of how AT is using the tools as a whole. Bellwether BC 15:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem with the format necessarily. He was presented with 10 individualized "issues" as evidence in list format and responded to those ten issues in list format. It's a matter of interpretation really. Had he been given a paragraph full of issues, he may very well have responded with a paragraph full of responses. What has soured me is the phrasing towards the end of the items. In "other issue A" and "Other Issue B" using $@*% style explitives doesn't help whether it's meant humorously or not. And he uses a logical fallacy that makes it impossible to support a sanction without being the bad guy "Let's not get on with Wikipedia"?. Have you stopped beating your wife? Keeper | 76 15:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question to the community (Refractored by ElC)

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

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

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

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

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

Some discussion refactored to talk. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason no one made comments to your responses is that they do not address the central point of this RFC... that you tend to make rash, un-thought-out decisions and don't forsee the potential problems with your conduct. That, thankfully, nothing bad has yet happened is besides the point. Your responses only show that no harm has come from your poor judgement, but it does not address the poor judgement that occurred BEFORE the actions were taken, only that, by dint of luck, nothing bad has happened SINCE they were taken. That many see this pattern of behavior as a major problem in the future, and that it is only a matter of time before these kinds of problems DO cause real harm is why the RFC was started in the first place. You have said nothing in your responses that may help allay these fears, which is why no one is really taking them up. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Care to explain this? (Refractored by ElC)

[2]. Hmmm? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is more a of condition by which Archtransit is complying with, set prior to this RFC. Or am I missing something? Rudget. 19:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
No, the block has already expired, so there is simply no issue to be discussed on WP:AN. In a best-case scenario, Archtransit was unaware that the block had already expired, which is a bit careless. In a more realistic scenario, it seems to be a bit of forum-shopping, which is made worse by Archtransit's highly one-sided presentation of the matter at WP:AN. MastCell Talk 19:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I see. Retracted comment. Rudget. 19:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If this RFC said "some things are of concern", I would find this more useful. Some seem to be saying "everything you do is crap". Some of the items list seem entirely reasonable. The AN post seems to be additional confirmation. The trouble with the "everything you do is crap" approach is some of my actions are tougher and some are more lenient so there is conflicting advice from some of the people who are unhappy.Archtransit (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that defending individual decisions which are now moot is probably a waste of time. If someone gives you a hard time about blocking an IP without an appropriate vandalism-after-final-warning, then the best response is just to say, "Oh, yeah. My bad. Sorry about that; I'll look more closely next time." I've certainly been in that position. Everyone makes bad calls once in a while, and that particular one was pretty minor. I think the concern is coming from a combination of excessively bold (reckless) moves like blocking Jehochman, and apparently minimizing or refusing to accept even constructive feedback, even on minor issues. It's not a matter of being quicker or slower on the block button; it's a matter being more careful and open to feedback. I can pretty much guarantee that regardless of the outcome of this RfC, you'll continue to get negative feedback from time to time. We all do. You can't rationalize or minimize all of it, or the people offering the feedback get frustrated and less forgiving the next time you make a mistake. MastCell Talk 20:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible resolution of RFC? (Refractored by ElC)

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

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

  • If that means "For three months I will not undertake any administrative action until another admin has cleared it first", fine. Maybe. Three months is too short a period of time and I would prefer you to step down and go back to RFA anyway. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't wish for anymore drama, but I too believe an RFA would be a good step. However, I am willing to be persuaded in favour or not, because of my position on the fence. Rudget. 17:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This reminds me a lot of what you said here, "agrees to block fewer than 15 users during this time, as many as possible should be non-controversial." The statement was pretty bizarre all by itself, and then you demonstrated very poor judgement on what is "non-controversial". If you're admitting that you're not yet prepared to use the admin tools responsibly (and, to me, you appear to be admitting this) why on earth would you think you ought to keep them? By all means, get some admin training. Then, come back to us when you think you're ready to be an admin. You clearly are not ready, right now today. Where's the harm in honoring your recall pledge and giving them up until such a time as you're ready? This is our basic expectation of all admin candidates- to not get the tools until they're prepared to use them responsibly. You appear to be trying to do it backwards. Friday (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that I'm joing the choir. Your response doesn't suggest that you really understand why there is a problem and that is a major concern. I'm not really seeing an alternative to you either standing down or running a reconfirmation RFA. Spartaz Humbug! 19:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

REVISED SHORT RFC

This is a proposed revised RFC which I think is less of a hardline, "everything you do is crap" RFC which may be more constructive. It takes excerpts from the above with little editing. Archtransit (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Statement of the dispute (Refractored by ElC)

Archtransit is bad.

[edit] Desired outcome (Refractored by ElC)

Discusssion and cooperation.

[edit] Description (Refractored by ElC)

Need for improvement in use of admin tools.

[edit] Concern (Refractored by ElC)

  • 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 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.
and recently
  1. Jan 30: Fairchoice (talk · contribs). An seemingly 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 made an interpretation of other admin comments about the long block duration, shortened the block from indef to 48h, notified but did not pre-approve the reduction of block duration and thought JzG was "retired". The end result is that Fairchoice has so far edited productively though there is anger because a more extensive process should have been used. There are also editors who believe a hardline and harsh blocking should be the punishment to improve Wikipedia. We believe either that a hardline and harsh blocking should be done or prior consultation (not just notification) is necessary for unblock.
  • Protection:
  1. [3]. 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. (The RFC authors don't understand because this is not what the RFPP is asking for; it is asking that an admin make an edit, something that Archtransit did not do).

[edit] Applicable policies (Refractored by ElC)

Left blank intentionally.

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (Refractored by ElC)

Left blank intentionally

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute (Refractored by ElC)

Left blank intentionally, we all know this happened.

[edit] Other users who endorse this statement (Refractored by ElC)

(sign with ~~~~)

[edit] Response (Refractored by ElC)

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.

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

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)

[edit] Discussion in response to shorter RFC (Refractored by ElC)

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archtransit (talk • contribs) 20:07, February 5, 2008 (UTC)

Title header changed by Rudget.
Are you serious? You don't actually get to recast your RFC to make it less painful for you and trying to change the basis of the discussion shows disrespect to the editors who have previously participated. Honestly, doing stuff like this just makes you look like you don't give a damn for the opinions of other editors. Spartaz Humbug! 20:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Cross-posted from talk page: This is uncharacteristic of Archtransit. Is there a situation with account security? Addendum: Then again, I guess not considering the considerable knowledge the user contains on these events. Rudget. 20:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
He's now completely off the rails. This has to stop. Bellwether BC 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This isn't right at all. Can we move this to the talk page, maybe? - Alison ❤ 21:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This is very poor judgment. And, as above, frustrating. --TheOtherBob 21:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This is plainly immature and petulant. Look at the statement of the dispute. "Archtransit is bad". NO ONE HAS SAID THAT. All that anyone is saying is that Archtransit has shown some poor judgement, and has an inappropriate response to criticism. If nothing else, this entire section shows that. No one, except Archtransit, has reduced this to such terms. This move is not helping editors arrive at a reasonable solution to the problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The shorter, revised RFC is a compromise attempt. It's a give and take. The benefits is that the response is a very short "I'm sorry", no explanations, and a very short resolution. Archtransit (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it's really not. You've simply made a mockery of the entire process by caricaturing the views of those bringing and certifying the RfC as "Archtransit is bad." This is not acceptable at all. No one has said that. Bellwether BC 21:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note about refractoring

I have moved discussions (and marked these "refractored by ElC") in many conduct RfCs, but rarely I have seen it go on at such length. Please, everyone, I realize that this time I am signatory to the page, but I still want to reiterate what "note about refractoring" always says: we need to follow the RfCs format instructions to make it easily readable. Otherwise, what's the point of having these if they're simply ignored. Thx. El_C 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Is it normal for the subject of the RfC to formulate his "response" as a series of "votes" on the underlying issues? I'm not well-versed in the format, but that seems out-of-process to me. Bellwether BC 21:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It is the first time I have seen it; and I've seen many tens. El_C 21:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on Temporary Outside View (Refractored by ElC)

Could this not be put on the talk page for now? Surely we should contribute to this discussion for now. In my opinion, discussion = progression. Rudget. 19:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, it's a problem. Discuss away, here; but follow the instructions on the RfC project page, or propose it becoming something else. El_C 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enough already

I have more reason than most to be offended, but I say let Archtransit off the hook. Mentorship will either work, or it won't. If there is a failure of mentorship then I expect Archtransit will resign gracefully, or have their sysop access removed via the normal process. Please, let's risk being too lenient, if you preceive it that way, because this contributor has a history of helping the project. Jehochman Talk 01:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You're completely mad to expect he'd resign gracefully, given his outlandish performance so far. But, you're completely right that anyone can bring this to Arbcom at any time (altho I'd not expect them to touch it.) Here's the thing- I think everyone is already being lenient. Nobody has suggested sanctions of any kind, in my recollection. The most that's being suggested is that his recently-elevated level of access, reserved for trusted and reasonable editors, be put back to the default. It's wrong-headed to see this as anything resembling punishment. Nobody's saying "block him", people are just saying he needs more time to learn. Friday (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This process must be extremely uncomfortable for Archtransit. That's why it should end soon. Anybody can file for arbitration at any time, but I request that mentorship be given a chance first, since there are willing mentors. Jehochman Talk 02:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait, we're too busy parsing every word that Archtransit types. This could take a while. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the usefullness of this is just about complete. I also agree with Friday. And I'm confused as to the mentorship, did he agree to Ryan and Riana? or to talk to Ryan and Riana about a list of mentors? Or what? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • From discussions with Ryan, I don't think he's giving Arch a choice. It's basically "Accept mentorship or face deadminning." Bellwether BC 04:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The little details are being worked on. I haven't researched what the WP guidelines are about e-mail. There was some controversy about releasing the contents of e-mail so I'll hold off for now.Archtransit (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time to start the mentoring?

I know the word is getting a little worn out, but is this response to a self-confessed representive of Abbott Labs a little bizarre? Tom Abbott as a user name? Is it possible we're dealing with a troll here? Ronnotel (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre doesn't even get close to describing what's happening here. The only honourable thing is for Archtransit to resign immediately. Anything else makes the wikipedia bureaucrats look even more ridiculous than they already do. They're over anxious to return the admin bit to anyone who asks for it, but scared of taking it off anyone who has demonstrated that they were not ready for it. Admin is no big deal, it's just a big joke. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Crats do not have the technical ability to remove the bit. There is also no cultural expectation that crats handle this side of the process. (I think there should be, but that's another story.) If you think removal of the bit is important here, you can bring this to Arbcom at any time. Friday (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If they can add the bit, then they can remove the bit; I do take your cultural expectations issue on board though. As for ArbCom, well, they're only concerned about the big issues, not ones like this that simply grind down regular editors. So what if a few dozen editors leave wikipedia because of one administrator's incompetence. It's far more important that the administrator ought not to be upset by any criticisms of his actions. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No, as Friday said, bureaucrats do not have the technical ability to desysop someone. Only a steward can do that. ArbCom will almost certainly take this case if it's brought to them; whether it's time to do so is another question. It does appear that Archtransit is being subjected to an unhealthy degree of scrutiny at present. "Tom Abbot" or "Abbot Tom" are not inherently ridiculous usernames; while I certainly wouldn't have suggested them, they're not evidence of any sort of deep-seated character flaw on Archtransit's part. It's probably worth making a concerted effort to separate the major issues (problems with specific sysop functions) from the things that are just idiosyncratic. Let's remember, Archtransit is a very solid contributor of content to this encyclopedia; while the questions about adminship are well-grounded, we don't need to turn this into a public flogging and drive him off. MastCell Talk 01:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Then it may be that I have misunderstood the meaning of the word "technical". Clearly bureaucrats can remove the admin bit and frequently do. Perhaps what you're suggesting is that bureaucrats lack the courage, or the mandate, to remove the admin bit when the administrator has not requested its removal? That's not a technical issue, that's a moral issue. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Stewards remove admin bits, bureaucrats don't - to be clear about technical, it means that the MediaWiki code as set up in en.wikipedia does not allow bureaucrats to demote administrators, per my understanding. Avruchtalk 01:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Then the stewards are just as gutless as the bureaucrats. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
There are rules... Breaking them gets a steward de-stewarded. Avruchtalk 01:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Stewards aren't allowed to desysop on en.wiki without ArbCom approval or in an emergency. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, you're being needlessly inflammatory here. If you want to help make admins more accountable, I'm with you. But calling various groups "gutless" is not going to help. Friday (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've said all I'm going to say, except for this. This hasn't been an RfC, it's been a Pantomime farce. Once an admin, always an admin. It's quite sad really. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Stewards are expressly forbidden from making decisions regarding these matters on a local wiki. It must come per user request or per ArbCom - Alison ❤ 01:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The most exact way of saying this is that stewards will help implement local decisions, right? Traditionally removing sysop access is only done at the decree of Jimbo, or more recently, Arbcom. We could change the local rules and decide as a community that we also trust crats to make these kinds of calls, and I expect the stewards would happily oblige. Friday (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but that would be the wicked and evil community deadmin, which has next to zero support amongst admins (from the last discussion of it i read). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Mentoring/Archtransit

To keep everyone in the loop, I have created the mentoring page for Archtransit which can be found in the above link. As this marks the start of mentoring, I have asked him to stop using his admin tools with immediate effect. I plan to work through protections, blocks and then deletions with him in individual steps. To start with, I have created User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Mentoring/Archtransit/Protection - this guides him through the process of when and where to protect (and when not to) followed by a number of tasks for Archtransit to complete where I've given him various scenarios and I'd like him to state what he'd do. I'll discuss each of the answers with him, and when I am satisfaied he fully understands the button, I will allow him to use protection again. Hope this helps explain where we're upto. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Do you intent to ask Arbcom for a desysop if he uses the tools outside the terms of the probation? Friday (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I would take it extremely seriously if he was to use the tools outside the mentorship. He's been given a chance now, I hope he doesn't blow it. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)