Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Linuxbeak

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This RfC is about Linuxbeak, not other editors. -Will Beback 06:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Objection noted. -Will Beback 06:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Silensor's comment 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: Support.  Please do not forget the redirect though, because redirects are cheap.  Silensor 21:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  You and I are destined to meet at WP:DRV one day, my friend.  Silensor 06:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stepping back a bit 

message: 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)
thread_title: Linuxbeak acknowledges his error and sincerely apologizes

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

text: Support.  Please do not forget the redirect though, because redirects are cheap.  Silensor 21:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  You and I are destined to meet at WP:DRV one day, my friend.  Silensor 06:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LB has some punitive actions applied 

message: Again, an RfC doesn't do this, but it can start the ball rolling. - brenneman {L}  07:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy is fine, it just has to be followed. -Will Beback 17:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to policy 

message: *I think you forgot this one. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 08:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linuxbeak is exonerated 

message: Because typos are funny roflololol. --SPUI (T - C) 14:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support.  Please do not forget the redirect though, because redirects are cheap.  Silensor 21:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  You and I are destined to meet at WP:DRV one day, my friend.  Silensor 06:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linuxbeak is renamed to Linxubeak

message: 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)
thread_title: Linuxbeak is renamed to Linuxbreak

message: 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)
replies: text: No. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 09:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Move it. - brenneman {L}  10:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't the threaded discussion be moved here? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Has anyone ever made SlimVirgin do anything she didn't want to do?

message: (that heading reads like something from SCO v. IBM) Discussion moved here - David Gerard 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh... I've changed it so that I can add my comments as well. Snoutwood (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Responses to Linuxbeak's response

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mentorship