Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Linuxbeak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Silensor (talk | contribs) at 06:07, 31 May 2006 (→Silensor's comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Avillia's comments

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

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

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

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

Silensor's comment

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

Please do not manipulate or move my comments. If there is a specific policy which does not allow me to voice my disendorsement of an RFC directly, on the main page, please do leave me a note on my talk page. Thank you. Silensor 06:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC is about Linuxbeak, not other editors. -Will Beback 06:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You had me fooled, it looks more like this is about SlimVirgin, FloNight, MSK, and Blue Aardvark than it is about Linuxbeak. Hence my strong objections to this entire RFC. Silensor 06:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Linuxbeak&oldid=56081523"