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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC).

Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

Linuxbeak has unilaterally unblocked Blu Aardvark (talk · contribs) and Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs) without prior discussion and obtaining consensus from other users, claiming that he can mentor them into good editorship. As a result, two well-respected users, User:SlimVirgin and User:FloNight, who were victims of these users' activities at Wikipedia Review, have left Wikipedia. Linuxbeak refuses to take responsibility for his actions, and has, in fact, decided to take a Wikibreak because of the "drama" which his actions caused. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Description

Linuxbeak has consistently said that he does not think he has violated any policies. "I acknowledge that I might have made a mistake. However, it appears that I didn't do anything out of process. It was an oversight to not talk to people previously involved in a block, but it's not in violation of anything."[1] However even before he wrote that I had posted to his talk page a reminder of the blocking policy, which clearly states what the process is for unblocking. So Linuxbeak not only violated the policy, but refuses to even acknowledge it. Admins who do not know the blocking policy should not use it. Secondarily, he appears to blame the "drama" on others, rather than taking responsibility for his actions. -Will Beback 06:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Powers misused

  1. User:Blu Aardvark
  2. User:Mistress Selina Kyle

Applicable policies

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Will Beback 03:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FeloniousMonk 17:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. cj | talk 04:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Guettarda 03:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Calton | Talk 04:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. •Jim62sch• 09:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC) -- but I really have no idea what this RFC can accomplish.[reply]
  5. —phh (t/c) 16:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Elizmr 23:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Linuxbeak needs to own up and face the music. Snoutwood (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Gamaliel 20:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AnnH ♫ 08:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Linuxbeak has a stubborn inability to recognize his own culpability. -lethe talk + 06:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agree more with the statement by Will Beback. Petros471 10:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Acknowledging and responding constructively to the concerns of others is essential in any role of leadership. Xoloz 13:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment by disputant[edit]

I must respond to a certain remark:

While I don't want to pick on Linuxbeak, I have to dispute this point. A good diplomat does not make promises on behalf of the community which cannot be met. He had private talks with very controversial blocked editors and rashly decided, in the course of just a day, to unblock them. After apparently deciding that Jimbo Wales was the only person who had to be consulted, he committed the community to accepting the return of the blocked editors. He made no attempt to gather support beforehand, and did very little to justify it afterwards. Linuxbeak had no right to make that promise on behalf of the community, was extremely unwise to have done so, and the situation predictably blew up.

The situation is reminiscent of the early days of the Brandt article. Similarly, Linuxbeak engaged in private negotiations and made a promise on behalf of the community. When he couldn't fulfill that promise, of deleting the article, the situation was severely exacerberated with additional hard feeling by Brandt.

Diplomacy is great if it means saying soothing things. But if it means making private deals on behalf of the community, then the would-be diplomats must make sure they don't promise more than they can deliver, and that they are willing to take responsibility for the outcomes. -Will Beback 08:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Response[edit]

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.

This has obviously caused a stir within a few groups of people. Some are out for my head, others are praising my actions. Personally, I'm in the middle. I think that what I did was done in the best of faith and in the spirit of diplomacy, but it could have been executed in a more surgical manner. I'm not perfect, and frankly, neither are any one of you. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

After looking at the blocking policy, I acknowledge that I should have contacted the blocking admins first. That was my mistake. However, this calling for my head on a silver platter is absurd: SlimVirgin and FloNight are both back, I acknowledge that I've made a mistake, and I made an attempt at extending some sort of olive branch to those who disagree with us most. This debacle, fueled by miscommunication, misunderstanding and assumption, is frankly minor in the grand aspect of what we're doing here. Mistake made, problems resolved, issue noted, move on. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. Tony Sidaway 14:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC) RfC is best understood as a way of enhancing the normal communication process. Sometimes that involves people queueing up to call for heads to roll and the like, but wiser heads can learn from such discussions. Linuxbeak is one of the best of us and, of course, will take much useful experience away from this RfC.[reply]
  2. David Gerard 15:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thatcher131 16:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Werdna (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by SPUI[edit]

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

Linxudrama!

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

  1. --SPUI (T - C) 03:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --W.marsh 03:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Get back to writing an encyclopedia. Naconkantari 03:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Toffile 03:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ral315 (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. with additional agreement towards Nacon -Mask 03:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 03:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. RfC is a farce. — Philwelch t 05:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. We support you, Linxubeak. (sic) Silensor 05:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. If you can unilaterally block, you can unilaterally unblock. I don't see what this kind of footstamping really serves. Grace Note 03:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. What a mess. What a waste. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. And I might add "move on people". No need to step down, no actions needed at all. It sorted itself out. BrokenSegue 15:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Rory096 08:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. David Gerard 15:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. robchurch | talk 22:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Golbez 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Avillia[edit]

Linuxbeak gained consensus on WP:AN from a number of respected administrators quickly tailing the unblock and can also be assumed to have gotten some measure of support from User:Jimbo_Wales per postings on WP:ANI and his status as a bureaucrat.

Linuxbeak's actions did not result in User:SlimVirgin and User:FloNight leaving; The first has needed a WikiBreak for quite some time and the second is still editing in relation. A WP:RfAr has been filed in relation to one of the two unblocked users, and in my opinion, both merited unblocking due to the situation which is described at length on WP:ANI

Linuxbeak refuses to take responsibility for his actions because he has no responsibility. I am firmly behind him and believe he has,overall, acted in the right. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 03:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. Giovanni33 03:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mask 03:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PurplePlatypus 08:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC) I would just like to add that much of what people are holding on BA and MSK's - and, indirectly through them, Linuxbeak's - heads, wasn't even done by those two. (I am referring, among other things, to Katefan's departure.) The actions in question were done by others in ways that, to varying degrees, involved a forum on which the former two happen to be administrators, and would more than likely have played out much the same if said forum didn't exist. They didn't do anything about it, but it's not clear to me that they were under any obligation to; it seems to me their only "crime", as far as these specific incidents go, is preferring not to be too heavy-handed and authoritarian in moderating said forum.[reply]
  4. Spondoolicks 10:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Pilot|guy 19:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Why is are these endorses indented with :? --Rory096 08:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -- Tawker 22:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 22:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. And SlimVirgin isn't really gone either; she unblocked a buddy recently. Al 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Dragomiloff 14:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. David Gerard 15:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Grue  18:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kevin_b_er 05:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Simetrical[edit]

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

Linuxbeak said himself that his failure to consult the community was an oversight. This implies that, retrospectively, he feels he was in error by unblocking the users without discussion. They were quickly reblocked, and Linuxbeak has made no attempt to reblock reunblock Werdna (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC) them. It was a small error on his part, easily remedied and nothing to hold against him.[reply]

If a user chooses to leave Wikipedia because of someone else's actions, that is their choice. The one who contributed to their departure is not at fault. Linuxbeak has not accepted responsibility for the departure of various admins, and he should not, because he has no responsibility for it.

A user who is under stress may take a break from Wikipedia, or may leave Wikipedia entirely. That is their choice, and nothing should be held against them for it. Linuxbeak's decision to take a break from Wikipedia shows no lack of responsibility or any other fault. We're all volunteers here.

In summary, Linuxbeak has acted admirably at every step of this dispute, despite being blamed for things he had nothing to do with, and despite constant general attacks on him. He did not in any way act wrongly, and my respect for him has if anything increased by reason of his behavior during this incident.

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

  1. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -Benon 03:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -Wikipedia is winning battles against disruptive users but losing the war. Linuxbeak is doing the right thing. Mexcellent 03:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -Giovanni33 03:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 03:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I generally support this summary --Philosophus T 04:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jaranda wat's sup 04:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Silensor 05:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Everyking 06:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. PurplePlatypus 08:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Spondoolicks 10:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ehheh 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Pilot|guy 19:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. JoshuaZ 00:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. JohnnyBGood t c 00:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. If you can block unilaterally, you can unblock unilaterally, but previous discussion would have prevented much of this crap. Also, everybody is assumed to be adult here, and they're responsible only for their own actions. Zocky | picture popups 12:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Rory096 08:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 22:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Al 07:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Dragomiloff 14:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. David Gerard 15:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22.  Grue  18:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Vlad1 12:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Guettarda[edit]

[note moved from reply sections]

To Avilia: You have the facts of the narrative wrong. In addition, as a bureaucrat he has added responsibility to the community. He abused his position of trust. Even if he meant well (which I don't doubt), his actions have torn the community apart. As he bureaucrat it was his role to try to heal the problem, not exacerbate it. Even if he had done nothing wrong, he would still be responsible for the mess he created. He has a lot to apologise for - and he should start by resigning as a bureaucrat. Guettarda 03:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


To Simetrical: I strongly believe that you have this completely wrong. By inviting them back, Alex endorsed BA and MSK's actions, and the filth of WR. He is directly responsible for the resulting departures. Alex most certainly did not act "admirably" - he showed contempt for the community by inviting these people back, and he has showed no willingness to take responsibility for his actions. Instead, all that anyone has gotten amounts to a "I'm sorry my actions upset you, but I'm still right". He has not showed the maturity befitting a bureaucrat, he has not shown respect for his fellow editors. And finally, his decision to leave the mess he made and go on a break to avoid the "drama and hostility", when he was the one responsible for the "drama and hostility" shows a lack of character. Guettarda 03:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. Jkelly 04:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Calton | Talk 04:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ec5618 06:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. •Jim62sch• 09:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FeloniousMonk 17:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elizmr 23:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. JoshuaZ 00:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Indeed. Although I disagree that resignation is necessary. Snoutwood (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I'm not absolutely convinced that resignation is necessary. I agree with everything else. AnnH ♫ 09:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. FeloniousMonk 19:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I think that Will Beback's brilliant case study of Alex's prior attempt at mentorship of User:JarlaxleArtemis needs to be considered here. After unblocking JarlaxleArtemis to mentor him, Alex apparently failed to follow through with the mentorship, forcing other editors to take up the task. While the unblocking of MSK and BA without community input was a big enough issue on its own, his failure to perform as a mentor in the JarlaxleArtemis case makes his actions doubly irresponsible. Guettarda 22:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FeloniousMonk, would you like to endorse this summary one more time, just to be on the safe side? Mexcellent 06:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by FuCyfre/SnarkBoojum[edit]

FuCyfre was not a registered username; the signature used on this post was forged. This inflammatory outside view has been removed as a hoax and likely trolling attempt. JDoorjam Talk 04:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it was actually vandalism, see here. I've replaced Guettarda's outside view below this.It was already re-added, my bad. --Rory096 08:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, FuCyfre used to exist, and that was this user. See here. --Rory096 08:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restored commentary by SnarkBoojum, who changed his name before writing this message. Let's assume good faith and say that the removal of Guettarda's message was inadvertent -- nae'blis (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC):[reply]

I think that Linuxbeak's actions have been arrogant, ill-conceived, naive in the extreme, and destructive both to individuals and of the community and of its potential. That said, while I think his judgement that all or nearly all folly or ill-will is redeemable is itself folly, and destructive folly at that, I think that there is the possibility that he may learn, and grow from this experience. In that sense his withdrawal from the fray may reflect the possibility of reconsideration and growth as well as a simple inability or unwillingness to take the well-deserved heat. I would hope, for his sake, that he is capable of that. One judges a person for their choices. Let us hope Linuxbeak finds a path to improve the character, and the quality, of his choices. FuCyfre 04:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Giovanni33[edit]

I strongly disagree with the above. I praise the actions of Linuxbeak and think he acted in the true spirit as a bureaucrat to heal the problem. This is why he assumed good faith to personally mentor and recuperate users who made mistakes in the past. Indefinte bans mean without a time period set, it does not mean permanent, forever. No one should be banned forever. People change. If any trust was violated it was the trust in Linuxbeak who asked that others trust him. We should do just that. Those who want to punish editors for being bad in the past and threaten to leave if they don't get their way are the ones who are wrong, not those who try to give people a chance to prove themsleves worthy of being a good wikipedian again. We should be an inclusive community that welcomes all potencial good contributors. The potencial is always there and specific acts of wrong doing should be taken care of only as a means to prevent their re-occurance. When there is reason to believe they will not re-occur, there is no reason keep the users banned. They shoould be tested out with a mentorship. This is about forgiving and forgetting and healing. Those who can't let go of the past are the ones that have the problem. I applaude Linuxbeak for his forward thinking and think we should not abandon trust, or hold him responsible for those who can't deal with what wikipedia is really about: writing an encylopedia, not forming a members only elite club of friends. Btw, FloNight has already returned and its just a matter of time before SlimVirgin returns as well.Giovanni33 03:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. -Giovanni33 04:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Spondoolicks 10:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LINUXERIST@ 23:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As mention, SlimVirgin's not entirely gone. Al 07:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dragomiloff 14:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. David Gerard 15:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Jaranda[edit]

This is a disaster, and probaly a personal victory for the most severe of trolls like Brandt out there. This conflict needs to stop and a solution needs to be found before it tears the community apart even more.

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

  1. Jaranda wat's sup 04:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Calton | Talk 04:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The first step towards stopping this "disaster" is declaring this RFC null and void. Silensor 05:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agreed. No quarter for trolls, period. Never side with a banned troll against your fellow admins. You have very little to gain from trying to rehabilitate an abusive troll but much to lose. --Cyde↔Weys 13:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FeloniousMonk 17:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Pilot|guy 19:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Elizmr 23:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. JoshuaZ 00:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yes, this a disaster. It's the intarwebs, people. (Note that this endorsement has nothing to do with what side is right). --Rory096 08:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Alas! MaxSem 13:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. -- Tawker 22:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Terence Ong 03:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. AnnH ♫ 09:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Mailer Diablo 17:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view from bainer (talk)[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I think the root cause of this was that Linuxbeak acted too hastily. He unblocked Blu five minutes before posting to WP:AN to propose the idea. Ral315, Jaranda and myself supported mentoring in principle, if it was done properly. However there was soon opposition from SlimVirgin, FloNight and FeloniousMonk among others. I later qualified my support for mentoring when it became clear that my personal experience with the users in question was not the full picture. The subsequent discussion revealed a strong difference of opinion on the concept of mentoring blocked users in general, let alone the particulars of this incident.

Although Linuxbeak could not have been expected to predict the amount of disagreement that his move caused, he should undoubtedly have allowed for discussion before unblocking, which would have revealed the lack of community support for his actions, and would have allowed him to abandon his plans. The blocking policy requires discussion with respect to all blocks, and common sense and the spirit of the policy demand comprehensive consideration and consensus in complex and controversial cases such as this. Linuxbeak is an experienced user and sysop, and should have known better. What happened after that was stirred up by users such as Avillia and was not Linuxbeak's fault. The whole mess should now be put behind us.

I think there is a need for a community discussion as to whether mentoring and rehabilitation is something that should ever be attempted. Unblocking in general is a controversial issue, and unbanning even more so. This dispute has revealed divisions within the community as to our fundamental approach to problem users which this RfC cannot resolve.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. bainer (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FeloniousMonk 17:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. cj | talk 04:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No comment on who stirred up what happened after, though. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 09:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AnnH ♫ 09:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Xoloz 14:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. David Gerard 15:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Or, to summarise: people are a problem.[reply]
  9. Tom Harrison Talk 22:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view from Silensor (talk)[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

This RFC is uncalled for. We've got bigger fish to fry. Silensor 06:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (Thought the matter was over by now.)[reply]
  2. brenneman {L} 07:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC) - I often wonder what the desired outcome of an RfC is. Here, I have not got the foggiest what it can accomplish.[reply]
  3. Giovanni33 07:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This RfC is doing nothing but throwing more fuel to this firestorm. Don't we have an encyclopedia to work on? --Toffile 13:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Quite the understatement. --Rory096 08:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. An extreme understatement, now lets stop wasting everyone's time and get back to work! -- Tawker 22:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mailer Diablo 01:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Even if there's something to fix, this RfC will only hurt. Al 07:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Dragomiloff 14:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. David Gerard 15:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Half-endorse. It certainly caught Linuxbeak's attention as desired![reply]

Outside view from Pilotguy (talk)[edit]

One thing is clear here: the posting on AN/I and Linuxbeak's talk page, the RFAr, this RFC, and so on are not really getting us anywhere. These so-called "discussions" we are having are only tearing our community apart, resulting in the (hopefully temporary) loss of some very valuable Wikipedians, and getting the attention of people we don't want to see. It is clear that the consenous remains that these two users in question should be blocked. We need to do what is best for the community, and keeping these users blocked appear to be the best thing to do. Hopefully Linuxbeak has learned a valuable lesson here. We must remember that we are all human, we tend to be bold, and mistakes are made. In the meantime, we all must remain kind to each other, and accept the fact that accidents, no matter on what magnitude, happen, and we must learn to put it behind us at some point. --Pilot|guy 20:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. Benon 20:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is this really a discussion? I don't think so. Silensor 21:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Toffile 00:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commendation. (Independent view from Kim Bruning)[edit]

We need some kind of diplomacy and politics wrt wikipedia review. There's this thing out there called the real world. We are judged in the real world by our actions.

If Linuxbeaks efforts were to have failed on their own, well fair enough, we would have always had the moral high ground, and we could then move to take other measures, perhaps turning to the press as a next step.

Beyond all expectations, Linuxbeak even convinced several wikipedia review people to come back to wikipedia and help out, despite their own personal emnity.

However, certain members of the wikipedia community have deliberately and conciously chosen to block Linuxbeaks efforts.

Rightly or wrongly, that was their choice. It was not the choice of Linuxbeak. Linuxbeak cannot be blamed for the actions of other wikipedians.

The current outcome is not optimal, but Linuxbeak himself played a positive role.

Linuxbeak is to be commended for his initiative and demonstrated diplomatic skill.

In future it might be important to coordinate diplomatic efforts better within the community, so that people like Linuxbeak will be more effective.

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

  1. Kim Bruning 15:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. TheKMan 15:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Avillia (Avillia me!) 15:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A very good summation of the situation. Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. JohnnyBGood t c 17:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Summarizes the situation very nicely.[reply]
  6. Well put. The (over)reaction in this case was far worse than the action. Mexcellent 19:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. People are responsible for their own (overre)actions. Pity that there is so little trust around here. NoSeptember talk 20:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Nice restatement of my view.Giovanni33 04:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. What Mexcellent said. --Spondoolicks 09:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Will (E@) T 10:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. There was a simple, calm, and near-trivial course of action to take for those who disapproved of Linuxbeak's action. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Rory096 08:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 22:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Mailer Diablo 01:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Tony Sidaway 04:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Says it better than I could have.[reply]
  17. -- DS1953 talk 04:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Reaching out to WikipediaReview took guts, initiative and diplomacy. Al 07:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Dragomiloff 14:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. David Gerard 15:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. InkSplotch 16:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22.  Grue  18:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. feydey 22:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. robchurch | talk 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Vlad1 12:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view from SOPHIA (talk)[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

We need to be very careful that this RfC stays focused purely on the behavior of Linuxbeak. I consider he was hasty and made a big mistake but the community responded, BA and MSK were swiftly reblocked and he has not tried to overturn this. He has stuck it out for a few days but maybe going on a break was a good idea as sometimes there is nothing you can say that will please everyone. The main point here is did he abuse his power or break some policy? The problem with this is that in a wiki environment there are never any real clear lines and one person's idea of adequate discussion is another's hasty move. He made a mistake and he has tried to justify why to alot of people who only seem to be out for finding someone to blame. None of this is helpful and only serves to waste the time we should be spending on the real issue which is how do we deal with people who cross the line and stalk other users either in real life or by posting personal information on websites? I'm sure Linuxbeak has learned a big lesson and I personally would rather have a bureaucrat with some experience under his belt - both good and bad. Let's not have wikipedia go the same way as modern politics where a mistake by a prominent figure results in their resignation and the loss of their experience with no resolution to the underlying problems. The community outrage needs to be satisfied and a supportive environment created to enable SV and FloNight to return but let's go for the real target - the disturbed editors who engage in this antisocial, threatening behavior. Sophia 12:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. Sophia 12:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. David Gerard 15:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tom Harrison Talk 22:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view from David Gerard[edit]

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 14:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. Arniep 16:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Thatcher131 16:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rory096 18:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Grue  19:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view from Lethe[edit]

I first met Linuxbeak during the attempted reload of User:HolyRomanEmperor's RfA. Like in this case, LB faced considerable criticism as well as support. Here, like that case, it was never LB's good intentions that were in question. It was my experience then that LB reacted rudely to the criticism, never acknowledging any of the points of his critics, only responding with large font monosyllabic rebuffs. And he withdrew altogether from the discussion very soon into the discussion (archive54). Similarly, in this case, LB refuses to acknowledge community opinion and process. For me, this marks the second flagrant demonstration of this fact.

Some people have suggested that now that there is an RfC, LB will listen, but his responses to this RfC have been nothing short of combative. While he admits that he was out of process, he simultaneously references the many other people who make mistakes, and accuses the people of filing this RfC of making mistakes themselves. What's one thing got to do with the other? He seems unable to take criticism and engage in dialogue. He seems unwilling to to listen to consensus when it doesn't agree with him. I am disappointed not by his mistakes, but by his response to criticism of his mistakes, which could have been constructive, but ended up being divisive. -lethe talk + 22:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. I came to a similar conclusion earlier. His response to the RFC and his response to these comments seem to prove lethe's assertions. Guettarda 22:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FeloniousMonk 19:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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

Epilog: While Linuxbeak remains an Bureaucrat and an Administrator, he has shown no activity since 19 January 2007.--CrazyGlu 22:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More