Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:21, 31 May 2006

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: 13:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC).

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

• protecting and unprotecting pages
• deleting and undeleting pages
• blocking and unblocking users

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

• (Linuxbeak | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

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 Misplaced Pages Review, have left Misplaced Pages. 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| 02:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it.

Powers misused

• Blocking (log):

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

Applicable policies

• WP:BP#If_you_disagree_with_a_block

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blu_Aardvark_and_Mistress_Selina_Kyle:_unblocking
• 02:09, May 29, 2006
• 22:15, May 30, 2006

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. User:Zoe| 02:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Will Beback 03:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Guettarda 03:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Response

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.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

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

Outside view by SPUI

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)
2. --W.marsh 03:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Get back to writing an encyclopedia. Naconkantari 03:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
4. --Toffile 03:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Ral315 (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
6. with additional agreement towards Nacon -M 03:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
7. --Avillia 03:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Avillia

Linuxbeak gained prior consensus on WP:AN from a number of respected administrators and can also be assumed to have gotten the support of 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 acted completely in the right in handling this. --Avillia 03:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Giovanni33 03:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC) M 03:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Simetrical

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 them. It was a small error on his part, easily remedied and nothing to hold against him.

If a user chooses to leave Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, or may leave Misplaced Pages entirely. That is their choice, and nothing should be held against them for it. Linuxbeak's decision to take a break from Misplaced Pages 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)
2. -Benon 03:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
3. -Misplaced Pages is winning battles against disruptive users but losing the war. Linuxbeak is doing the right thing. Mexcellent 03:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
4. -Giovanni33 03:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
5. --Avillia 03:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
6. I generally support this summary --Philosophus 04:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Jaranda 04:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Guettarda

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)

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)

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

1. Jkelly 04:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by FuCyfre

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)

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

Outside view by User:Giovanni33

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.Giovanni33 03:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

1. -

Discussion

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