Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Linuxbeak

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)

That is correct. Avillia, perhaps you'd like to revise? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 03:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• • A small detail he might have missed: [1], showing Linuxbeak unblocking MSK at 21:59; the announcement he links to was made at 22:03. QED. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, the statement about Jimbo's approval is inaccurate as well. Linuxbeak never said he got Jimbo's specific approval, just that Jimbo was informed and said "good luck". —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This RfC is about Linuxbeak, not other editors. -Will Beback 06:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Objection noted. -Will Beback 06:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That'd be great if they all come back. -Will Beback 06:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• I agree with Will. Alex needs to take responsibility for his actions. Guettarda 23:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

Linuxbeak is exonerated

• I think you forgot this one. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 08:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Aye, a potential outcome, but this section was about understanding the reason that this RfC was brought forward. Unless you suspect that this was some convoluted double-blind? Reverse psychology, or something like it? - brenneman ^{L} 23:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You asked what we would like to accomplish with the RFC. Last I checked, I am part of "we", right? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 09:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, when you put it like that, fair enough. I was letting my experiance with previous RfCs colour my perceptions too much: The defence usually consists of "This is stupid, the person who raised the RfC is stupid, the person it's against craps gold bricks." So I'm not used to thinking in terms of "exoneration" which to me implies some real discussion and actual exchange of views. I sit corrected! ^_^
        brenneman ^{L} 11:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Hmm, I wonder if Linuxbeak does crap gold bricks? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak is renamed to Linxubeak

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

Support. Please do not forget the redirect though, because redirects are cheap. Silensor 21:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

You and I are destined to meet at WP:DRV one day, my friend. Silensor 06:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Support. It's true. I did. Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 02:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

No. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 09:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Move it. - brenneman ^{L} 10:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Even Willy on Wheels? How about Zephram Stark? AMorrow? Daniel Brandt? Mindspillage's real life stalker? --Cyde↔Weys 19:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Then you clearly don't know anything about Blu Aardvark and MSK. --Cyde↔Weys 15:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Heh... I've changed it so that I can add my comments as well. Snoutwood (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And what about Cryptic, btw? Guettarda 22:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

16:03, 30 May 2006 Cryptic deleted "User:Cryptic" (Just making it official; MSK's unblock shows the system's still broke.)

Linuxbeak: Earlier, User:Aaron Brenneman asked what outcome was sought from this RfC. I replied, "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." Are you willing to simply say something to the effect that, "I didn't follow policy, I should have discussed the matter fully, and I'm sorry for what happened. I apologize to those whose feelings were hurt as a result, hope that any who left as a result will return, and wish that we could all edit in harmony again." Is there any part of that which you disagree with? -Will Beback 23:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just got back from dinner, so if you've been waiting with bated (baited? rebate? o_O) breath, I apologize. As far as your statement goes, I have no actual feelings towards whoever has left. That was their own decision that they decided to make, so I'm not going to wish them to come back. I mean, don't get me wrong, if they come back, that's wonderful and great. Otherwise, that's more or less what I've been trying to convey. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Eight minutes hardly gave me a chance to water the plants, much less bate my breath. Do I understand correctly that you wanted Blu Aardvark and Mistress Seline Kyle to come back, but you don't want SlimVirgin, FloNight, and Cryptic to come back? I can't believee that's what you mean. -Will Beback 00:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Noo, nononono. What I meant was that I don't have an opinion one way or the other. If they come back, hooray, wonderful, and all the better. If they don't then I'm sorry to see them go, but I'm not going to try to chase them down and catch them. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You did chase down and catch BA and MSK, so in effect, you did care about them but you are saying you don't care about the others. Don't you think that Flonight, Cryptic, and SlimVirgin contributed positively to the project? If so, why wouldn't you care? -Will Beback 00:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak's comments are just breathtakingly arrogant. You went out of your way to bring back disruptive trolls who are causing real-life problems for people, but you don't care if valuable editors and admins go? Just what was your motivation to approach Blu and MSK, in the first place? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

" It was my experience then that LB reacted rudely to the criticism" (from lethe's outside view). I'd say that Alex, in trying to undercut part of lethe's statement, has proven another part to be spot on. Guettarda 22:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see anything rude about LB's response, especially in the context of what it was a response to. (lethe's non-sequitur counterresponses, on the other hand - that I consider rude.) LB pointed out that the criticism was factually inaccurate. This was clear to anyone reading this project page and equipped with a functioning brain. That he didn't trip over himself apologizing for noticing this is not in any way objectionable. PurplePlatypus 22:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Then your idea of "a rude response to criticism" is different from mine. It's rude to attack someone for constructive criticism. I was amazed to see him attack lethe's "consensus" by saying, in essence, that only half the community opposed him, so he wasn't wrong to do what he did. That takes quite some gall. How is attacking a critic anything but a rude response to criticism? Guettarda 12:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how pointing out a fact that has nothing directly to do with the critic is an attack on the critic. Moreover, Lethe's response has been to effectively plug his ears and go "nyah nyah, I'm not listening" and try to change the subject. That I have a serious problem with. PurplePlatypus 20:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well then I guess you should continue acting this way. Nothing wrong with splitting the community in half, since you're sure one half of us are wrong. Thank you for proving my point, yet again. -lethe ^{talk +} 22:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you're blaming me for splitting the community in half? Explain to me how I singlehandedly pulled off this stunt. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So you still don't know what you've done wrong, why this RfC was filed? Let me refresh your memory: it was unblocking in violation of policy. -lethe ^{talk +} 22:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that. I said Let me get this straight: you're blaming me for splitting the community in half? Explain to me how I singlehandedly pulled off this stunt.. Go on. You said "nothing wrong with splitting the community in half", and I know that was directed at me. Tell me how I did that. Don't assume and don't put words in my mouth. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You performed a controversial action. Half the community disagrees with it, by your own admission. What about this is hard to understand? -lethe ^{talk +} 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but it seems clear to me that you are misunderstanding. LB performed a controversial action. Around half the community disagreed. The action was reversed, and LB did not perform it. Everything should be fine. If he had wheel-warred, we'd have a serious problem. Instead, he respected that community consensus did not exist on the issue. In this kind of situation, you use the fact that so many people disagree to prove that the action should be reversed and not repeated; you don't use it to punish the admin for failing to read the mind of the community. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, half of the people who care disagree with it. So? More than half applaude it. Once again, I'll repeat myself: Let me get this straight: you're blaming me for splitting the community in half? Explain to me how I singlehandedly pulled off this stunt. Also, watch it with the word choice. Don't go breaking the civility policy. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could be more specific with your question, instead of just repeating your earlier question, which as far as I can tell, I've answered several times. What exactly is it that you want to know? -lethe ^{talk +} 23:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that he's arguing that he isn't solely responsibly for the community's reaction, as the comunity's reaction is its own, but I could be wrong (Linuxbeak, is that an accurate statement?). Linuxbeak, I believe that Lethe is arguing that you did singlehandedly break up the community, since had you discussed this we wouldn't be in this situation (Lethe, is that correct?). Snoutwood (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's my point. I wasn't really interested in making the point that he was solely responsible for all bad things. Just that he is among the responsible. So I don't care too much about "singlehandedness", but truth be told, it was LB's actions, and no one else's, which lead us to the ugly situation we are in. Had LB discussed, we wouldn't have had the uproar. Had LB returned to the discussion with an acknowledgment, instead of taking his ball and leaving, we wouldn't have this RfC. So it's not just his initial failure to discuss (though it is that too), it is also the continuing present unwillingness to discuss. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, pot, meet kettle. Had everybody chosen to not have an uproar but instead say, "Oh, Linuxbeak made a mistake, but after community consensus was clear he respected that and didn't try to wheel-war," we would not have had the uproar, either. So I hereby accuse you of having just as much culpability in "dividing the community" (if that's truly happened) as you are accusing Linuxbeak of having. It was the reaction of people like you that caused this uproar. People are going to take controversial actions all the time. If they respect correction and don't try to wheel-war over it, that's fine, and that's exactly how the system is intended to work. Admins who respect this should be praised.

You are also willfully misrepresenting Linuxbeak's departure. He did not "take his ball and go home." He took a break. He said when he left that's all it was [2]. He left to give himself, and this issue, a break. That's exactly the right thing to do. You are deliberately and intentionally trying to spin this as a negative thing. I'm really curious why. Furthermore, even if Linuxbeak had left in the way you describe, why is it a tragedy when other people do it, but a divisive thing when Linuxbeak does it? Why don't you blame those people for dividing the community by taking their ball and leaving? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 14:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with many of your comments. Number 1: I'm accusing LB of being divisive, but I myself am also being divisive by pursuing this issue, when I could just as well let it drop. Yep, I agree with that. The reason I'm doing that is I would like to see more accountability in WP admins. So I take the blame for that. Maybe you should file an RfC on me, every controversial action should have an RfC. An RfC for filing unnecessary RfCs! But no, the difference is, I'm using RfC for what it's here for; to comment, while LB is misusing admin powers or policy. Second, I spin his leaving as a negative thing because I view it as quite negative. If you want to be bold and make controversial decisions, you have to stick around, listen to the critics, defend your position, act, and react. When you do something like this and then run for cover, only occasionally coming back to exclaim "let he who has no sin cast the first stone", you are showing great disrespect to the community and the consensus building process, and this has been my point all along. If you can't stick around in the face of criticism, don't make controversial admin actions. Finally, I agree with your last point. The other people who left, SlimVirgin, FloNight, whoever, I don't know if they have or they haven't. But I do not approve of their actions either. Anyone who can't put up with the heat should not stay, but ransoming Linuxbeak with their departure is quite immature. Only thing is, they didn't abuse their powers, while LB did. And no matter how much I may disapprove of the fact that they either left or pretended to leave, it does not absolve LB of his role in incurring their actions. So here we are, having an RfC for LB, and not for them. -lethe ^{talk +} 14:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that we need more accountability in WP admins. But to me when an admin ceases to pursue a controversial course of action, the issue's settled. LB failed to check with blocking admins, and I'm pretty sure he's stated that he realizes that was a bad idea. He didn't wheel-war or anything. Man, I wish every admin taking controversial actions would react this well! So the RFC has been made, everybody's been heard, and I'm not sure what else there is to say. So I guess I'm questioning why we're still having it. LB is not likely to make any additional concessions, and it looks like roughly half of the community (including me) think he doesn't need to. He's not claiming to be perfect, and the will of the community seems to have prevailed. I really think we're ready to move on, now. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 14:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Now if we could only agree on the final point, the one which matters most. You say "I'm pretty sure he's stated that he realizes that was a bad idea". I think he has done so, sort of. Every admission I've seen from LB so far has been a mix of admission of his own guilt, denial of any knowledge of wrong-doing, and counteraccusations against the people asking for the admission. If at some point I had seen a clear acknowledgment of the mistake made and an assurance that it wouldn't happen again, then indeed, we would not be here right now. That's all I (and I think Beback) ever wanted out of this. -lethe ^{talk +} 14:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just checked his entire (short) posting history since he came back. There's this, which I know you don't feel completely meets your standards, but I feel is enough. Note that the sentence you quoted me was in specific reference to failure to consult with the blocking admins before unblocking, and this apology specifically addresses that failure. He does not deny any knowledge of wrongdoing. He does, however, retain his right to say, "You guys are calling for a penalty out of proportion to the offense of failing to contact the blocking admins." There's no reason he should give that up. He's not the only person saying it, either. So I have no problem with the fact that his clear acknowledgement of fault also includes a rejoinder to the community to get back to work instead of seeking to punish an admin for actions which he's already repudiated and ceased. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Specifically addresses"? You think "could have been executed more surgically" is specific? I'll agree with everything you said if you remove the word "specific" from your description (including the assertion that this does not meet my standards). How about "vaguely addresses" instead? -lethe ^{talk +} 15:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He said, "After looking at the blocking policy, I acknowledge that I should have contacted the blocking admins first. That was my mistake." Yes, that specifically addresses the specific failure that I had any concern about. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I somehow failed to read the second paragraph in your diff. That is quite specific. Then we are in agreement. If only everyone in the LB camp (especially LB himself) were as logical and reasonable as you. -lethe ^{talk +} 02:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for Linuxbeak, but when I hear "splitting the community in half" I imagine editors and admins massing along new political divisions, copies of Wikipedia forking left and right, hundreds if not thousands of wikipedians resigning in disgust. Instead, I've seen 1 resign, 1 almost resign, and somewhere around 15 sign onto the original complaint. I have a hard time seeing a crack, let alone a whole "split". I see an admin who unblocked known vandals in an attempt to reform them, without adequate warning or discussion (I'm still unsure if it's a policy violation or not). I see those same vandals reblocked in under 2 hours. I see no attempt at wheel warring by Linuxbeak on their behalf. What I don't see is an attempt to discuss this with Linuxbeak, instead I see torches and pitchforks. People calling for him to resign his bureacratic position, his admin position, heck, I think I saw someone tell him to just leave Wiki entirely. Personally, I think he's been handling this all quite admirably. --InkSplotch 23:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I really couldn't have said that any better. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You agree with those people who think you've done nothing wrong, once again demonstrating that you don't think you've done anything wrong. -lethe ^{talk +} 00:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say he did nothing wrong. I said he unblocked vandals without adequate warning or discussion. They were reblocked in under 2 hours, and neither made any edits in that time. Mind you, as much as they (or at least one of them probably) know about sock puppets, the blocks are only superficially preventative. My point is, while he may have been abrupt he made no attempt to hide what he did (he did post to AN), nor did he war over it. I think he saw in the first 2 hours that he ought to have given more warning. But this RFC wasn't to look at his intentions, it wasn't to discuss whether his plans actually had any merit, it was just to continue crucifying him long after the situation had been paved over. Many of us want to know what's the point. --InkSplotch 02:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he made it clear that he realizes he should have consulted with other admins first, he has apologized for this, but since it caused no damage, he doesn't see what all the fuss is about. I think that's what most of his supporters think, too. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How does hurting the feelings of several admins count as "no damage?" We have a "no personal attacks" policy just in order to keep the editing atmosphere collegial. How does driving away one of our most active admins not count as damage? If he can admit he made a mistake then he can apologize to those his mistake harmed. It's not rocket science, it's just being a mensch. -Will Beback 03:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Who did he "drive away?" If you talking about SlimVirgin, she never left. Check her edit contributions. That was just a stunt for emotional manipulation and its equally bad form for any of us to fall into such a ploy by giving credence to such a tactic by making these illogical argument blaming LB for her actions. There is a correlation but this is not a cause and effect. SV's own thinking and free will to make up her mind about what she wants to do is the cause, so blame that. It relfects badly on SV but even worse on those of us who use SV's own independant action of her own free as way to attack and blame LB for her actions and choice? This is especially true given the fact that she was only pretending to leave obviously to cause a reaction to serve her own political ends. This should be rejected. In retrospect there are always ways to improve and do things better a second time around. No one is perfect. The question is, was LB entitled to take the action and was it positive in nature with good intention and in keeping with the values and spirit of our community? I'd say the answer is a resounding yes. The way some of us have reacted is what is problematic, and a symptom not of LB doing something wrong but of our culture. I agree LB should probably not have acted alone but confered with others first, however, I can think of an argument for not getting consensus first, given this strong irrational reaction. A trusted member of the community such as LB should have the leeway under his own personal responsiblity and mentorship supervision to make the call on his own, and it's our duty to give him the trust and respect that his possition entitles him to. Think about it. What harm can come if he will watch and undo any damage that could result, and then rebann the bad editors (if they proved to still be bad?)? None. The damange here is some of our over-reactions. But who is causing this? Not LB, that is of our (or your) own doing. We are each responsible for our own actions, no? Also, even this is being exagerated. Splitting apart and having some healthy debate and conflict is never a bad thing. Apparently given the thinking of half the folks here an incident and debate of this nature is exactly what was needed. I hope we all come out of this having learned something, and be a little wiser and more mature. For this we should doubly thank LB. Giovanni33 04:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"...however, I can think of an argument for not getting consensus first, given this strong irrational reaction." This is akin to saying, "I shouldn't talk about whether this is a good idea, because I know I'm right and everybody who disagrees with me is wrong and their opinions should be discounted." I must say that I disagree with that attitude.

"What harm can come if he will watch and undo any damage that could result, and then rebann the bad editors (if they proved to still be bad?)? None." I again disagree. The potential trouble is Linuxbeak not spending the time on them, as happened with Jaraxle Artemis, the users failing to apologise and make up for their actions, which seems likely as Wikipedia Review, is, as far as I can tell, as much of a reeking, stinking, foul cesspit as it ever was (I haven't been able to access it recently, but I doubt things have changed). Have you forgotten what has happened over there? People responsible for Katefan0, Gator1, potentially Phil Sandifer's incident with the police, attacks against many of us, a general stream of insult? And we welcome these people back with no real reason to trust them? They've already had their chances. Let them show us that they're ready before we open up our gates.

Linuxbeak, while trusted and in a position of some kind of "power," certainly does not have the authority to welcome back users who have caused strife without talking about the issue with the community, and especially the people who were tormented by said users. This was not done. Like I said above, if we can expect him to discuss this beforehand next time, which I think is the case, then I can move on, no troubles. (Oh, and as an aside, SV's leaving and her "real" motivations aren't an issue that needs to be discussed here, as that is not the purpose of this RfC.) Snoutwood (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Snoutman. I'd very much like to agree with your final point, that LB has learned his lesson, and next time he will be more careful. However, every time he apologizes and acknowledges his mistake, it is mixed in with underhanded jabs at the community (or at least his critics) and various verbiage which suggests that he still thinks he did nothing wrong. Observe his dialogue above with Beback for a perfect example of this. So it is not at all clear to me that he has learned anything from this debacle (and it is my opinion that we've seen similar behaviour in the past from LB). So if it seems like I'm harping on it forever, like I'm unwilling to move on, that's the reason. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• The question is, was LB entitled to take the action and was it positive in nature with good intention and in keeping with the values and spirit of our community? I'd say the answer is a resounding yes.

Is Linuxbeak "entitled" to violate policy? What positive outcome has there been from his "diplomacy"? The "intent" of our community is to write an encyclpedia. How does offending our valuable editors help that process? How is splitting the community a positive thing? I don't understand your perspective. -Will Beback 07:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Is Linuxbeak "entitled" to violate policy? Linuxbeak is empowered to uphold the interests of Wikipedia, and occasionally one must ignore the rules. That's not an excuse, that just him doing what he felt was best.
• What positive outcome has there been from his "diplomacy"? His attempts at diplomacy were shut down by the community. I wouldn't call this RFC an "outcome", but a "reaction." Still, that might just be semantics.
• The "intent" of our community is to write an encyclpedia. How does offending our valuable editors help that process? I'm sorry, has anyone established that as his intent? Admins accept that their actions will offend someone. It's regrettable that it happens. It's regrettable that it has to happen at all. Rather than judge every action by, "who will it offend and how valuable are they to the encyclopedia?" I think the more simple, "is it best for the encyclopedia?" is the best guideline they can follow. Again, I think it's clear that if Linuxbeak knew his actions would have had this reaction from so many, he'd have approached it differently. That doesn't justify the level of reaction.
• How is splitting the community a positive thing? I don't understand your perspective. Here we are again, splitting the community. I think the perspective some of us have that you don't understand is in how we gauge the seriousness of this offense. Granted, no two people in this debate will be alike, but there seems a pretty big gulf between where you and lethe are, and where Linuxbeak, and everyone who signed Kim_Brunning's commendation might be. I view it this way:

• It was unintenionally disruptive.
• It could have been avoided through more advance warning.
• It has not divided the community, or even created factions (look at Userboxes for factionalism).
• It was repaired in very short order.
• It has caused no irrepairable harm to the encyclopedia. It's unfortunate so many were upset by this, and it's doubly so that some valuable editors have left or taken breaks over this issue: SV, FloNight, Cryptic, Linuxbeak. Some have or may come back, some might be gone for good. Each one of them makes that choice for themselves. But to say Linuxbeak created an environment that forced them out? To say this is proof the system is broken? The system is just fine, and has moved on without us. Other people are still editing, vandals are still blocked, and the encyclopedia is still going on. It wasn't even wobbly. In fact, I've wasted too much time in here as it is. I apologize. --InkSplotch 13:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Lethe, I agree with virtually everything you are saying here, except Anyone who can't put up with the heat should not stay. When someone's personal life is threatened, that's "not being able to put up with the heat"? What will you do if somebody starts stalking you in real life? As for Linuxbeak, I am more firmly assured than ever that this RfC is appropriate, and would like to see him voluntarily surrender his adminship, since he is so adamantly unable to understand that he has done anything wrong. All I hear is someone mouthing platitudes to try to get everybody to shut up, but someone who doesn't believe a word they're saying. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath, Zoe. Oh, and tell me how I'm so adamantly unable to understand that I have done anything wrong, especially when I have stated that I have. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The diffs you link are examples of you mouthing platitudes. Pretending to apologize to shut everyone up, while simultaneously defending rigorously that nothing is your fault. Of course, since we know you don't agree with us, we won't hold our breaths waiting for you to step down. -lethe ^{talk +} 02:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

if anyone has evidence suggesting that Linuxbeak is unfit to be an administrator, they should of course submit it to an arbitrator. There is an ongoing arbitration case on this incident: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Blu_Aardvark --Tony Sidaway 02:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

At present, the ArbCom doesn't desysop people except for flagrant and persistent violations of policy, so there wouldn't be much point in asking ArbCom to desysop, Tony, as I'm sure you well know. Nevertheless, it's easy to imagine that this fiasco would easily keep Linuxbeak from passing RfA, and it's not unreasonable to ask someone to step down under such circumstances. Obviously Linuxbeak isn't going to do so, but it's still good to have your request on the record. But thank you for your pointer. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You will, I hope, have recognised that my invitation is more of a challenge: Put up or shut up. --Tony Sidaway 03:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It would suck if I were the victim of a crime, but I don't let criminals keep me from doing the things I want to do. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Mentorship

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark/Evidence#Mentorship case study, I review your mentorship of User:JarlaxleArtemis and conclude that it was not a success. The user:MARMOT mentorship was likewise unsuccessful, with different mentors. Despite these failures you sought to create two new mentorships. Have we learned from our mistakes? Will we again seek out banned users to bring them back under the mentorships? -Will Beback 04:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My concluding thoughts regarding this RfC

I have a few thoughts regarding this RfC, including what it has and has not accomplished, where we go from here, and thoughts for the future.

First, I consider this RfC to be for all intents and purposes over. Some of you will disagree and some of you will probably bicker at me for it, but I really don't care right now. This is what has been accomplished:

1. My attention has been gained that there are those who objected to my actions.
2. I have acknowledged that I have made a mistake in acting unilaterally, and I have apologized.
3. I have acknowledged that I made a mistake in regards to the blocking policy. To that I apologize.

What this RfC failed to do was come to a conclusion one way or the other regarding the severity of what I did. Some say that what I did was totally inappropriate and that I should renounce my bureaucratship and/or adminship. On the other hand, some have commended me. Someone even gave me a barnstar. Side effect: bickering. Too much time wasted arguing with each other over something that frankly isn't going to even make a dent in Wikipedia's history.

What I have learned: I have learned that the community needs advance warning before something potentially controversial is executed. I have (re)learned that there are those who are going to disagree with me and that is something that I am (and they are) just going to have to live with. I have learned that there are people who have touchy feelings and that while I don't need to cater to everyone, I need to have a little more of a minesweeper's attitude: patience, care, and deliberate actions.

What I have to say to those who opposed me: You are of course entitled to your own opinions, and some things that were brought up were indeed very valid. However, I did not appreciate the amount of assuming that was taking place. I found that on more than one occasion people skewed what I said into something that was not true. As a matter of fact, this happened enough that I just stopped replying to comments. I'm not going to waste time (mine or yours) writing out a response to something just to have that response skewed. The aggressive attitudes were not in any way helpful.

What I have to say to those who supported me: Thank you for dragging yourselves to this and sticking up for me. I appreciate it. A word of caution: don't let yourselves be sucked into a sludgethrowing match with those who directly oppose you. Just walk away from the situation, like I did. It helps everyone.

Where we go from here: As I have stated previously, I am not going to give up my adminship or bureaucratship. That's a kneejerk reaction to a stupid error. If you want to desysop me, take it up with ArbCom, because the rationale that I have heard for stripping me of sysop powers have been hollow at best.

Thoughts for the future: You know, mediation would have worked just as well. It would have been just as effective.

Conclusion: You got my attention, I realized I made a mistake, and I'll be more careful in the future. There is nothing else to say, and nothing more to discuss. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 16:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Be civil please. -lethe ^{talk +} 16:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, good sir, would you be kind enough to fulfil a humble request by identifying where my words were incivil? Gracefully yours, Linuxbeak ([please] drop me a line) 16:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What I find uncivil is the dismissive attitude, as in "I really don't care right now," and "I'm not going to waste time (mine or yours) writing out a response to something just to have that response skewed," and what I'm assuming is the sarcasm in "please, good sir, would you be kind enough ..."

I e-mailed you as soon as I saw the unblocks, and you didn't even bother to reply. The position of bureaucrat isn't really much different from admin, but it could be very different if bureaucrats were seen to be particularly responsible/senior/mature admins, and many people do feel that a second tier is needed. The problem, Linuxbeak, is that the way you're behaving has undermined the office. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In context, neither of the first two quotes is outside the bounds of reasonable discussion, and I think you know that. PurplePlatypus 02:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

mediation would have worked just as well. Right. Just as well as it did with JarlaxleArtemis. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you please indicate where you have responded to the concerns raised by members of the community. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" isn't exactly a very constructive response. Most of us have not invited back banned users without community consensus. I can't think of anyone who has split the community as much as you did here. And yet, rather than acknowledging that the trust put in you by the community when they elected you bureaucrat has been violated, you instead characterised the point as "absurd". To lethe's you responded with attacks. Rather than listening to the opinion of your peers, you reacted with arrogance and insult.

Your "concluding thoughts" stink of imperial hubris. "My attention has been gained that there are those who objected to my actions" is about as arrogant a statement as I have ever heard by anyone in authority. "Speak, Caesar is turned to here". We, the supplicants at your feet, the dirt beneath your feet, have managed to gain your attention. Dear God. You acknowledge that you made a mistake? What a great concession on your part. I'd have thought it would have been bloody obvious the moment you did it and a shitstorm erupted. But no. You "acknowledged" your mistake once an RFC was filed. Wow. And you acknowledged that you made a mistake with respect to the blocking policy. Another great concession. Most people would consult the blocking policy before they make a controvertial block. Other lesser mortals might do so in the midst of the firestorm that their actions ignite. But not Caesar. No, Caesar waits for the RFC, and then acknowledges the words of his supplicants.

Concluding thoughts? Did you read any of what the complainants had to say? Oh yes, you must have skimmed what lethe had to say, since you proceeded to attack him. Didn't read it well enough to realise that in so doing you were proving his point. Obviously you have nothing but contempt for half the community. This makes me very sad. Guettarda 22:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 23:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember to be civil Avillia. -lethe ^{talk +} 23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you people do something other than trade civility warnings? This sort of thing requires communication, not hiding behind "civility" when you don't like what somebody says. To put my opinion in the mix, I think this conclusion achieves the purpose of this RfC. Linuxbeak has admitted that he was wrong, and has promised to do better in the future. What more do you people want? Werdna (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What I would like is a very sincere assurance that this was an error on LB's part, and an apology from him, or if he doesn't regard it as an error, then an explanation of what he intended to achieve with it and why he felt it was justified. As things stand, the message is that LB feels at ease with the people who run a website that has reported one editor to the police; published material with the apparent aim of removing another editor's livelihood; published private photographs and what they believe are people's real names, addresses and telephone numbers without their consent; discussed editors' sex lives and appearances; posted material from a known Internet stalker who is harassing people IRL; and has called me a c*** and whore (and the rest) a thousand times. The arrogance of the response above is disheartening and hurtful. LB's actions were hurtful and that he doesn't care is hurtful again. It has taken all the fun out of Wikipedia for me, and I was very committed to the project. Now I just feel let down and betrayed. For me, it's not a question of squeezing an apology out of someone who doesn't want to give it, for appearances' sake. It's just a question of continuing to hope that LB will find a way to put things right. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be confused. Wikipedia Review is not interchangable with Wikipedia Watch; the latter is where most of the above occurred, and would have occurred even if WR didn't exist. (To say nothing of the whole blaming people for things other people did angle, which has been beaten to death already.) PurplePlatypus 01:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC):

All of the above took place, and is still posted, on WR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, WW is a more polite place than WR. Guettarda 02:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that may be true (though chiefly because they don't censor discussion), but the fact remains that WR and the Hivemind are not interchangable. PurplePlatypus 02:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, he's already admitted that he was in the wrong by not seeking community consensus for the unblocks. I don't really see why an apology is merited here, though. There's no questioning what some of the folks from WR have done, but Linuxbeak is not endorsing or enabling these actions by accepting Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle back into the community, as a second chance. The unblocks were both reversible actions, as was shown by a number of administrators, who almost immediately block-warred over it, without even seeing if the editors were going to behave or not. I really don't see what's so hurtful about Linuxbeak's actions. For what it's worth, I appreciate that you're still contributing after being greivously harrassed - but it really doesn't mean that those who are responsible should be banned from editing indefinitely simply out of retribution. Our blocking policy states that blocking is used to prevent or deter unwanted actions, rather than as a punitive or retalliatory measure. Do you honestly believe that the editors in question would have instantly started harrassing you? Well if they did, they would have been instantly reblocked. So in summary, Linuxbeak should make sure that he, in future, seeks further community input before making such drastic changes, however as far as I'm concerned, stating that the unblocking was a personal affront is either exaggerated or oversensitive. Werdna (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)