Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Linuxbeak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Linuxbeak (talk | contribs) at 22:30, 5 June 2006 (→‎Response to Lethe's outside view: forgot to sign in). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Avillia's comments

Avillia's comments are untrue. Linuxbeak posted to WP:AN after he had already unblocked both users, he did not get consenus, he presented us with a fait accompli. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Avillia, perhaps you'd like to revise? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 03:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without trying to involve myself too deeply, from a technical point of view, the timestamp for the unblockings occurred at 21:58/21:29 while the post to AN was made at 22:03. Naconkantari 03:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, his assumptions about Jimbo's approval are just that -- his assumptions. Even Linuxbeak (and Raul, who was in on it, apparently) haven't asserted that Jimbo "approved" -- rather, he did not object, and said "Good luck". That's what I'd say if I were a benevolent dictator about to watch someone do something really really stupid that they were fully entitled to do. Avillia's also got weird ideas about bureaucrats having some special status other than being able to flip some bits in an editor's permissions. Considering this guy showed up barely two months ago, I can understand his confusion on these issues. I'm a bit puzzled by his unwillingness to be accurate when corrected, though.--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Jimbo's answer was "good luck" then how is that not an approval of the goal and actions of Linuxbeak? Linuxbeak informs Jimbo of his proposed action. Jimbo then wishes Linuxbeak to have good luck in the endeavor. This might signify some skepticism as to the result of the admirable idealism of Linuxbeak goal, but clearly it is an accetance of this action. If Karl Rover were to come to President Bush with a plan to tourture his opponents and wire-tape Kerry, et.al, and Bush responds, "Good luck," would anyone question Bush's approval of this action? Rove would have the Presidents support.Giovanni33 04:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since Rove would have to seek Bush's approval to do something like that, Bush's response would be significant whatever it is. Linuxbeak did not have to seek Jimbo's approval, he just mentioned it. Jimbo does not routinely involve himself in blocking or unblocking. Jimbo's response to Linuxbeak could easily be interpreted as noncommittal; "good luck" obviously doesn't express opposition, but it doesn't necessarily express support either.

Regardless of what you think, many here disagree, which indicates ipso facto that there's an ambiguity. This should be noted. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If perchance the end result of all this is that these users are unblocked to be mentored by Linuxbeak, I'll say "good luck" to him to. And with neither irony nor sarcasm. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying, I hold extreme doubts that a bureaucrat, one of the most trusted users on Wikipedia, would lie about the opinion of Jimmy Wales for a petty dispute and risk a lot in the process. While we are all clear here that Jimbo didn't explictly approve it (in which case he would have likely unblocked himself), he was fine with it. Furthermore, I see the ANI post a hour before the block log; It might be a issue on my end, I'll cycle around my timezone and my cache in a moment. Regardless, I stand. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 03:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever was said by Wales and on the IRC are unverifiable, and so should not be considered. Regarding the sequence - please review the logs:
  • 21:59, May 28, 2006 Linuxbeak unblocked Mistress Selina Kyle (contribs) (Unblocking, being mentored)
  • 21:58, May 28, 2006 Linuxbeak unblocked Blu Aardvark (contribs) (Unblocking, being mentored)
  • 22:03, May 28, 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (Two users being unblocked and put into Mentorship)
-Will Beback 04:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's saying Linuxbeak would lie about Jimbo's approval. We're saying he never said anything about Jimbo's approval, except that Jimbo said "good luck". That could be interpreted as approval, or it could be interpreted as having no opinion on the matter. It certainly can't be interpreted as an ex cathedra order. You should clarify your statement. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silensor's comment

It is somewhat strange that Zoe implicates that Linuxbeak did not "take responsibility for his actions", yet does not expect SlimVirgin nor FloNight to take responsibility for their own. No one forced them to leave, and they are welcome back at any time. It is quite evident that Linuxbeak acted in the best of faith and this witchhunt attempt is uncalled for. Silensor 05:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not manipulate or move my comments. If there is a specific policy which does not allow me to voice my disendorsement of an RFC directly, on the main page, please do leave me a note on my talk page. Thank you. Silensor 06:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC is about Linuxbeak, not other editors. -Will Beback 06:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You had me fooled, it looks more like this is about SlimVirgin, FloNight, MSK, and Blue Aardvark than it is about Linuxbeak. Hence my strong objections to this entire RFC. Silensor 06:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Objection noted. -Will Beback 06:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other editors are specifically named in the statement of the dispute. That it was through fault of Linuxbeak that they left the project is not something everyone is willing to stipulate. You don't get to pick and choose what part of the dispute that you want people to comment on. Mexcellent 06:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute is about Linuxbeak violating the blockiing policy. The repurcussions of his violation are significant, but not the focus of this RfC. -Will Beback 06:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they aren't the focus of the RFC they should be removed. If the repercussions are relevent enough to stay, then they are relevant enough to comment on. Mexcellent 17:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record FloNight has already returned to Wikipedia and is open to compromise now and to work by assuming good faith. See her user page. It is just a matter of time before SV does the same.Giovanni33 06:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be great if they all come back. -Will Beback 06:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The convention you've violated is WP:RFC#Responding to RfCs. Negative responses are frowned upon, at least on the RFC page itself. Give your own separate account if you disagree with someone else's. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 08:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping back a bit

Can we review what we'd like to accomplish with this request for comment? I've made a few possible outcomes into subsections, please feel free to add any more. They aren't mutually exclusive, by the way. I haven't tried to polish the language at all here, so if someone wants to make this more "formal" please do. I'm not espousing any particular solution here, I just want to know what we're doing, what the purpose of this is. Rather than just a kick in the guts, I mean, because obviously that would be pointless. - brenneman {L} 07:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I tried the kick in the guts, but it's hard to generate much momentum when you're trying to kick a word on the screen of a laptop that's on a lapdesk on your lap. Guettarda 23:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linuxbeak acknowledges his error and sincerely apologizes

Right now now says he did nothing wrong, violated no policies, and is not responsible for anything that happened. -Will Beback 17:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This position seems the most sensible to me. Acknowledge the error(s), accept responsibility, apologize both to the community and to particularly offended individuals, attempt to learn from the experience, and move on. FuCyfre 00:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The way he's treating this now is as if it's a farce. Some sort of acknowledgement that this won't happen again would be good. I also have trouble with his attitude that he's not in any way responsible for SV - I believe that he owes her a specific apology for welcoming back her tormentor with nary a word to her. This is the sort of irresponsibility that led to Heph's leaving, and for any of you who can't help but shout Meatball:GoodBye thousands of times remember that he, anyway, is still gone, and the time is still counting. For things similar to this, no less. Snoutwood (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LB has some punitive actions applied

Noting of course that an RfC doesn't do this, but if that's the eventual aim please do come right out and say that. - brenneman {L} 07:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to policy

Again, an RfC doesn't do this, but it can start the ball rolling. - brenneman {L} 07:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is fine, it just has to be followed. -Will Beback 17:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linuxbeak is exonerated

Linuxbeak is renamed to Linxubeak

Because typos are funny roflololol. --SPUI (T - C) 14:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Please do not forget the redirect though, because redirects are cheap. Silensor 21:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of WikiProject User Sorting I am here to tell you that the redirect will have to be deleted. --SPUI (T - C) 23:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You and I are destined to meet at WP:DRV one day, my friend. Silensor 06:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linuxbeak is renamed to Linuxbreak

Because we all know damn well that's what we all thought his name was for many months before we read the name carefully. --Cyde↔Weys 17:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's true. I did. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 02:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the threaded discussion be moved here?

It seems clear to me that the threaded discussion between Cyde and Toffile on the front page belongs here, not there. Does anyone seriously disagree? PurplePlatypus 07:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 09:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Move it. - brenneman {L} 10:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Silensor's view

With all due respect, trying to unblock banned users who were involved in very disgusting acts is nothing but throwing more fuel on the firestorm. Don't we have an encyclopedia to work on? It's not a rehab clinic. --Cyde↔Weys 13:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linuxbreak may have started the fire, unintentionally (I've seen no evidence that he meant to cause this massive backlash.), however almost every reaction to this I've seen is doing nothing but pouring more and more fuel on it, and causing more and more people to leave. I can't say I agree with the rehab clinic statement though. I think that everyone should have a chance at redemption.--Toffile 19:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even Willy on Wheels? How about Zephram Stark? AMorrow? Daniel Brandt? Mindspillage's real life stalker? --Cyde↔Weys 19:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice strawmen. I think they already had their chances and blew them. I don't think their situations apply to this situation though.--Toffile 21:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you clearly don't know anything about Blu Aardvark and MSK. --Cyde↔Weys 15:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see...
  • The vandalism by Willy is nowhere near what MSK or Blu did.
  • Zephram repeatedly creates sockpuppets and vandalize. MSK didn't, Blu made sockpuppets, but I don't recall ever seeing a diff that invovlved a vandalism edit after his spree. More or less somewhat conversation that got reverted because he was blocked...
  • AMorrow is a loonie mysogynist who got kicked off the WR...
  • Brandt is hellbent on getting rid of his article on Wikipedia by publishing personal details. I don't think the situation is the same as MSK or Blu, because: a) neither are notable enough for individual articles and b) I don't think either are actively hunting down admin personal information.
  • As for the stalker, I can't say I ever heard of that case. Might've occured before I started editing or I never noticed it on AN or AN/I
I think that's my views on how the situations compare. MSK and Blu definitely vandalized, but the extent of the vandalism is nowhere close to your examples.--Toffile 18:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone ever made SlimVirgin do anything she didn't want to do?

The Arb Com has previously noted the principle that anyone may be granted forgiveness. We were ready to forgive Wik/Gzornenplatz and welcome him back if he could just stop his obnoxious behaviour, even after his massive vandalbot attack. Anyone less worse than that, I don't see it as intrinsically a hanging offence to try to welcome them back, and I doubt the AC would either. (Although it may or may not be a good idea.) And in any case, it's not entirely convincing that it was actually a policy breach of any sort.

As for SlimVirgin, she has her own opinions and will do whatever she pleases (this is meant as a good thing). Blaming Linuxbeak for any action she takes fails the giggle test.

I think the generally annoyed reaction from many has given Linuxbeak pause to think on the matter, which means this RFC has probably achieved communication at least. - David Gerard 15:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Linuxbeak's response

(that heading reads like something from SCO v. IBM) Discussion moved here - David Gerard 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... I've changed it so that I can add my comments as well. Snoutwood (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Hard to believe, since the tone of his response to the RfC is one of defensiveness and retaliation. -lethe talk + 15:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, I agree with Linuxbeak in that I do not doubt that his actions were made in good faith. His desire to aid the project is not coming into question here. What I disagree with (in this response) is his attitude of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," as if since we've made mistakes we shouldn't comment on his.

He's apologized, I assume that he won't be doing this again, I'm O.K. with that (I don't think that it's going to get much better, and I'm willing to take what I can get). As long as the point's fully sunk in that he shouldn't just reverse big stuff like this, then I'm O.K. and ready to move on.

Anyway, I'd've endorsed this response if it were missing all that 'this is minor so don't think about it' 'you're all coming to get my head on a platter' crap. Snoutwood (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said "don't think about it." I said that this is minor in the grand aspect of what we're doing here. Seriously, if you were to RFC every single admin who has ever violated the blocking policy to any extent, then you would be doing so for years. Also, yes, I stand by the second statement that some people are out for my head. At least two have demanded desysopping. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but it's still frustrating even if it's minor in the grand scheme of things, and this isn't some minor breaking of the blocking policy. It's inviting back blocked and, more to the point, harrassing users without checking with the community or even with the people they tormented. And though I don't think you should be de-sysopped, I understand why some people are angry enough to want that. Snoutwood (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are very few blocked users who wouldn't come back if offered the chance. If they'd have left of their own volition we wouldn't have had to block them. It'd be great if Linuxbeak could use his diplomatic skills to get FloNight and SlimVirgin to come back. Until that happens the problems aren't resolved. -Will Beback 18:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Lethe's outside view

He seems unwilling to to listen to consensus when it doesn't agree with him. Oh? According to this RfC, it seems like there are an equal amount of people, if not more, that think that I haven't done anything wrong. That's not consensus, lethe. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Linuxbeak&oldid=57074511"