Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle: unblocking 1.1 Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle: unblocking/contd 1.2 Arbitrary break for sanity's sake 1.3 Before anyone gets all misty-eyed about Mistress Selina Kyle 1.4 Jimbo approving. 1.5 Regarding SlimVirgin 1.6 IRC cabal 1.7 Disgust 1.8 We are building a religion (I mean an encyclopaedia) 1.9 Raul654 unblocking Blu Aardvark. 1.10 Do you guys have any idea how much joy this debacle will be giving Brandt?! 1.11 Sick of the drama, sick of the hostility 1.12 WP:RfAr 1.13 This is a... 1.14 Another outsider's view

[edit] Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle: unblocking

Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) — Blu Aardvark (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

14:58, 28 May 2006 Linuxbeak unblocked Blu Aardvark (contribs) (Unblocking, being mentored) --Was this discussed anywhere? Seems unwise considering Blu Aardvark's use of socks and agitating for disruption of wikipedia at WikipediaReview. Will Linuxbeak be mentoring his sockpuppets too? FeloniousMonk 22:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We have discussed the sockpuppet issue. He has acknowledged that yes, sockpuppets are not how you go doing things here. He acknowledges that he has made mistakes and he is apologetic. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Has he said he won't use socks? Has he disclosed all his other socks? Really this fellow has really relished pissing on other Wikipedians in the past. It would be nice to see if he has acknowledged this and resolved not to do it again. You know, publicly. I don't want to go three months down the line and see him chortling all over Wikipedia about being let back despite all the crap he unloaded on us. Most important, does he recognise the authority of the arbitration committee? --Tony Sidaway 22:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

But has the community discussed it? I suspect that there's not many who are familiar with his recent sentiments posted at WikipediaReview advocating disruption here that share your optimism. This should have been discussed first. FeloniousMonk 22:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand and totally accept your take on this. Yes, this was not a community decision, but I have worked with previously hostile users in the past. I am asking you to trust me. You don't have to accept this, but I am asking for a grace period of one week. This has worked in the past, and I've produced favorable results. I understand your rationally guarded and skeptical stance, but I'm just asking for one week. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be easier to grant you that were his unblocking done with the community's knowledge and input beforehand. The way this was handled, and knowing his history, makes this all very suspect. FeloniousMonk 22:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Community" is a weasel-word here, he was blocked, the involved parties agreed, and nobody outside complained. It's not like everyone got together and said "we will never ever let this guy come back". I think this is a fine opportunity for supervised mentoring. Ashibaka tock 22:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I imagine that this provisional situation limits them to these named accounts and these named accounts only. Mackensen (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

While I won't say that we should -not- use off-wiki material for on-wiki actions, we need to apply it everywhere or nowhere. Blu Aardvark's account on WikipediaReview could have been compromised, it could be a impersonator, we have no way of knowing because it is not tied to Wikipedia by technical or legal means. We need to look at his history on Wikipedia and the history of his confirmed sockpuppets (via CheckUser) and decide on that. If his socks are disruptive by no other means than the fact they exist to allow a banned user to return (IE: No voterigging, vandalism, etc), and some time has passed... Let's let him back. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 22:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I question the "success rate" that Linuxbeak mentions. A similar case is that of user:JarlaxleArtemis (JA). He had been in the middle of a second ArbCom case when he lashed out so horribly that he was immediately and permanently banned. Subsequently he contacted Linuxbeak and pleaded for a second chance, promising to do a number of things if allowed back. Linuxbeak (who had borne the brunt of JA's anger) generously allowed him back under a strict mentorship and based on JA's completion of several steps, including apologizing, undoing previous vandalism, etc. Once back, JA did none of the things required of him and after a short period of good behavior went back to behaviors that had led to his previous ArbCom cases. Linuxbeak had gotten busy with Wikimani, and two other appointed mentors had lost interest, which left JA unsupervised and he took advantage of it. Eventually I noticed the trouble, asked Linuxbeak for help, but he was still too busy to do anything, so I intervened, which took considerable time. I'd like to ask Linuxbeak how this mentorship will be handled differently from JA's in order to prevent a similar problem. -Will Beback 23:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And MARMOT ended up indefinitely blocked again? --pgk^(talk) 23:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am appointing mentors that have the time to dedicate. Also, I will retain final say in mentorship-related matters such as veto power as to ensure that everything goes smoothly. The thing about Jarlaxle is that while he had rough moments, he eventually learned how to play Wiki. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is way too little information for us just to take it on your word. Who exactly are these mentors? Who'll be minding the minders? FeloniousMonk 23:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As one of the administrators involved with Blu Aardvark, I think it is a good idea that we offer him a shot at being a good Wikipedian again. I don't believe he is intrinsically a bad person, because he has shown some evidence in his Wikipedia career of being a decent Wikipedian; he has just made a series of recent bad judgements, and undertaken less-than-acceptable actions as a consequence. I don't believe that should make him persona non grata as regards Wikipedia, and thus I think we should offer him another go. So long as we watch his account carefully, and expeditiously block him again if he partakes in unacceptable behaviour, I see not a scrap of harm that could be caused by allowing him another chance provided his behaviour is watched assiduously. Yes, it is true this wasn't arrived at by direct consensus, but the present ban was in fact only arrived at via de facto consensus - as in, no dispute, versus a prior decision that a ban was necessary. After all, bans are meant to be merely a necessary mechanical means versus a punitive action, and so I see no reason why a last crack of redemption would be inappropriate. So as a consequence, I call on all Wikipedians to give this a go, as Linuxbeak suggests, and evaluate the results. We may well, of course, gain a possibly good Wikipedian as a consequence. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak is completely trustworthy. He's one of our best people and I am sure he'll make a great job of this. Best of luck. Nothing I've said here is intended to she doubt on his judgement. It would be nice to see a bit more publicly what is going on, but in the end if Linuxbeak is prepared to block his protege in a case of serious problems, or at least not get in the way of normal administrative action without giving a full account of his interventions, that's okay. I'd love to see Blu Aardvark back again and not doing the troll thing. --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Would also like to point out that the other user previously unblocked and mentored, MARMOT, ended up exploiting vulnerabilities in the Mediawiki software and had to be banned, personally, by Jimbo Wales. I wish LB all the luck in the world with these two, but I sure hope they are watched more carefully than the others were, because neither of the two previous mentorships worked in the least. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 23:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak, does he even know he's been unblocked? He hasn't done anything.-- The ikiroid  23:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Though no one has mentioned it, User:Mistress Selina Kyle has also been unblocked as part of the same mentorship. -Will Beback 23:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Good grief! This is risky stuff. -Tony Sidaway 00:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark's encouragement of Amorrow to taunt MusicalLinguist is so completely misguided that I can never support his participation on Wikipedia. FloNight ^talk 23:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reblocked MSK because she was highly disruptive and made no good contributions. Linuxbeak, it's inappropriate of you to unblock such controversial users without discussion, and in particular given what's happened to Katefan0. These two users are staff members of Wikipedia Review, not ordinary posters. They have shaped the way the website has developed, and both have the power to make sure that the material that damages individuals isn't posted. It seems bizarre to respond to the recent serious attacks on Kelly, Phil, Tony, and Katefan0 by allowing the people in charge to post here again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

WikipediaReview is not Wikipedia. We have no way to verify if those users are the likewise named users of WikipediaReview; That their accounts have not been compromised if they are those members; What we have is this. Useful contributions to Wikipedia, if only minor. Months have passed; Let's unblock and see how things go. Worse case scenario, if incivility starts again, Special:Block is a click away. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 23:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be hard to find out if these users admit to being the users of the same name on WR, all we have ot do is ask them. Unless anyone has claimed that they are different then there's really no reason to assume that they aren't the same people. I assume that Linuxbeak, being a responsible person, has already discussed this with the users before he unblocked them, so he should be able to tell us if they deny being involved with WR. -Will Beback 23:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

They've admitted they're the same people, so Avillia's raising that is a red herring. I ask that Linuxbeak come here and give a full explanation of what's been going on behind the scenes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I'm asking that you please trust me. Selina has made plenty of good contributions. Also, while I grieve what has happened to Katefan0 (I went into a mini-rage earlier today over it, which is something that never happens to me), that wasn't Wikipedia Review as a whole. That was Daniel Brandt. Selina has plenty of good edits, as well: see this. Also, Selina has asked to reply to this, so I would like to unblock her so that she can do so. I know that this might seem totally whacked, but you know me. I'm not going to do something if I don't think good can't come out of it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't the good edits that were the problem. Can you describe your conversations with these users? Did they acknowledge that what they did previously was wrong? What did they say thet led you to believe that their future behavior would be different from their past behavior? These two editors are owners/operators/moderators of WR, so they are responsible for its content. Have they made any comments about the realtionship of WR and WP? If we had more informaiton it'd be easier to understand this proposed arrangement. -Will Beback 00:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I also have to ask how many permabanned editors have come back to lead lives as productive editors vs. the near certainty of less disruption from those who are not unblocked. FeloniousMonk 00:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well let's see, there's Mike Garcia, that's all I can think of. —Khoikhoi 00:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mike Garcia? Do you really consider him a "success"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayjg (talk • contribs) 01:28, 29 May 2006.

Compare his User:Michael account to his current one. All I'm saying is that it's the best example of a banned troll who has turned into a good user. —Khoikhoi 01:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. I talked to Blu Aardvark on IRC this afternoon. I approached him, saying that I know that there are problems with Wikipedia, and I'd like to help find solutions, etc. He and I had a very civil and intellegent conversation, and the subject of him being blocked came up. I mentioned that we have a mentorship process to handle things such as this. Blu Aardvark acknowledged that he had violated our policies and rules and that it was not appropriate for him to act as such. He also apologized. His acknowledgement and repentance for what he had done in the past is a sign that there's a possibility of being an active part of the community again. We have done this in the past (remember User:Michael?) and it has worked. Blu Aardvark has agreed to be civil. As far as Mistress Selina is concerned, I would like to direct your attention to User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle#Welcome_back. I would also like to make note that I informed Jimbo of this decision, to which he did not have any problems (he told me "good luck"). If I am given the chance to prove to you that these people can be let back in, I won't let you down. Just give me the chance. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark should have been making those representations to the community, not just one well-placed person. I'd want to see a comprehensive mea culpa from BA in which he lists all his sockpuppets and publicly renounces his contempt for our policies and values before I'd even consider giving him a chance. Too many intentional disruptions and hurtful personal attacks have come from a site he's significantly responsible for while under his watch. We lost one of our better admins last week due to harassment in real world because some of his friends on his site contacted her employer, and he did not even bother to speak up, much less intervene. He needs to account for that. We need more than your word here. FeloniousMonk 00:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

LB, look, it has started already. See below: "what SlimVirgin is saying is blatantly false and just an attempt to smear me as some kind of vandal." These people don't acknowledge that they have done anything wrong. MSK has posted on WR that I pretend to be a Jew on Wikipedia because I am really a neo-Nazi trying to compile accurate lists of Jews to attack, or something (forgive me if I have it slightly wrong, but it's hard to paraphrase craziness). She has referred to that conspiracy theory very recently, so this isn't old news. How can you let someone like back onto Wikipedia? If she had been a great editor, and you were asking me to overlook eccentricity, then maybe I'd consider it. But she was never a good editor either, so how does this benefit Wikipedia or any of its editors? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the impression among its users that IRC is a substitute for Wikipedia community involvement. One IRC user apologizing to another IRC user has nothing to do with Wikipedia. If a user wants to make amends, let him or her do it in Wikipedia space, or else let us not count it (but by the same logic, let's also not count off-site comments at WR against them). -lethe ^{talk +} 01:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blu_Aardvark.27s_unblocking (at the bottom)

To anyone reading this can you please point out this, because what SlimVirgin is saying is blatantly false and just an attempt to smear me as some kind of vandal (when I am definitely not):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle?oldid=47363392#A_list_of_some_positive_contributions:
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mistress_Selina_Kyle?namespace=0

Also remind her that Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks/Extension is NOT policy and likely never will be, and even if it was you can't attack me just for helping run a forum where some other people have said nasty things - I myself usually are the voice of reason there...

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Reposted from User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle. Kotepho 00:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark can explain this comment on WR. Tue 23rd May 2006, 8:39pm “Wanna have some fun, Amorrow? Since AnnH (MusicalLinguist) is having so much fun tracking, reverting, and blocking your edits, throw a wrench in the works. Hit recentchanges for a bit and revert a little vandalism. See if your good friend Ann reverts you because you are banned, or has the common sense that some edits, even those of "banned" users, do have merit after all.”[1] --FloNight ^talk 00:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle: unblocking/contd

I've moved the following so the discussion isn't split. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I'm just letting people know that I'm going to try doing what I did with User:JarlaxleArtemis and User:MARMOT with two other users: User:Mistress Selina Kyle and User:Blu Aardvark. I have talked to both in length, and I believe that we can let them back in without too much fuss. They have agreed to seek help via mentorship in case of trouble, and I hope that some good can come out of this. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no opposition to this provided that the mentorship is handled appropriately. On the subject, are there any conditions of the unblock other than the mentorship? Ral315 (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, I have had experience with both and both (especially Blu Aardvark) have a good prospect of rehabilitation. Strike that, I support the unblocking and mentorship for Blu only. --bainer (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Blu Aardvark's unblocking. -Will Beback 23:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to help mentorship one of them. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. Please talk to me via user talk, and we'll set you up. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Linuxbeak, please go to WP:AN/I and discuss this in full before you take any further action. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I’m totally flabbergasted that this is even being considered. --FloNight ^talk 23:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Me too. It shows contempt for their victims. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated Blu Aardvark's block until more information is provided and some consensus here is reached. This has been way too backroom for such a disrutive editor as Blu Aardvark. FeloniousMonk 23:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this...why are we spending a second of anyone's time considering this. His track record is one of flipping out and heading south if things don't go his way. We don't owe him anymore chances, he has no inherent right to edit here and we've already wasted more than enough time on him. For us to even consider this there would need to be a lot more discussion and evidence that he's somehow changed his attitude, something that is not evident here or on WR... Rx StrangeLove 00:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Both these unblocks have been okayed by Jimbo. Ashibaka tock 00:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a link for this? And when you say okayed do you mean not objected to, or positively supported? --pgk^(talk) 00:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To quote Linuxbeak above I would also like to make note that I informed Jimbo of this decision, to which he did not have any problems (he told me "good luck"). Kotepho 00:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If Jimbo wants to approve the unblock, he'll tell us that himself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a bad, bad idea, and we're going to regret it soon enough. Do you guys even remember what Blu Aardvark did? I can't think of many things to do that would've made it worse. He was using a combination of personal attacks, sockpuppetry, disruption, and oh yeah, anti-semitism. Why do we think that every user can be rehabilitated? Even assuming they can, why should we? It takes a lot of work and we're writing an encyclopedia here, not running a rehabilitation clinic. --Cyde↔Weys 00:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This all strikes me as very weird, and I have a few questions. Does anyone have valid statistics on how much time (how many edits?) admins spend actually creating encyclopedic content versus other activities? I get the impression (maybe in error) that vandal fighting has replaced encyclopedia creation as the number one task of admins. Is Wikipedia becoming one third encyclopedia making, one third free blog, one third free first person shooter game ("blocked a vandal; woohoo"). Does letting loose the caged fox make the fox hunt fun? Are people let back in because of it is good for building the encyclopedia or other reasons? Can't banned people make suggestions for improvements via e-mail to concerned persons who then implement them? What's the rush? Will waiting six months be a problem? Why? WAS 4.250 00:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I can definitely testify to the fact that my encyclopedia writing has gone down since becoming an admin. A sad state of affairs. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Acitive admins who are active as admins do spend most of thier time dealing with vandalism or copyvios.Geni 00:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of what they have posted about me, except I'm censoring the last word. When I last checked, it was still there, even though other posters have objected. Both Blu Aardvark and MSK are staff there and are responsible for removing this kind of thing:

"SV is a plane jane used up ho that can't earn even 1 euro for a blowjob so she gets on wikipedia where she can ban and harass others just to get wet and rub her scabby c***" [2]

Linuxbeak, is this what you regard as fair comment, or a responsible way to run a discussion board? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How (s)he runs h(er/is) board is her buisness, if that is her board. Our concern, the concern of editors and administrators alike, is Wikipedia. Not if a gal has a Adam's Apple, not if the guy's a Stormfront donator. The question we must be asking ourselves is, "Will allowing Selina to return harm the project?" Not even the community, although this is something Selina will hopefully be better with, but the project. Her mainspace edits don't reflect vandalism or a intent to disrupt, she has clearly made amens and is intending to reform, and my opinion is to let her. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now you're admitting they're the same editors? No more red herrings about them being other people with the same name? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you point us to something that backs this up: she has clearly made amens and is intending to reform Rx StrangeLove 01:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can do a one strike, they are gone indef again rule? Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

We've done that already. I recall that MSK had several last chances. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Or this from MSK just tonight: "I don't think SlimVirgin really is a Jew at all. really.." Does that sound like someone we want to give even more chances to?? [3] Rx StrangeLove 01:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle's conspiracy theory about me is that I'm pretending to be a Jew on Wikipedia, but I'm really a neo-Nazi secretly compiling lists of Jews for Stormfront members to attack. Her evidence for this, and the reason I first came to her attention on WP, is that I defended some Muslim editors against their attacks. I'm not kidding. If we're going to unblock her, let's also unblock Cheesedreams, Lir, and Alberuni. Linuxbeak can open a mentoring school and do it in bulk for reduced rates. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark can explain this comment on WR. Tue 23rd May 2006, 8:39pm “Wanna have some fun, Amorrow? Since AnnH (MusicalLinguist) is having so much fun tracking, reverting, and blocking your edits, throw a wrench in the works. Hit recentchanges for a bit and revert a little vandalism. See if your good friend Ann reverts you because you are banned, or has the common sense that some edits, even those of "banned" users, do have merit after all.”[4] --FloNight ^talk 00:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark was a ok editor and Im willing to let him back with a apology and MSK I may be willing to give one last chance, it's not completely her fault about all those comments was made in the review site. I talked to MSK in IRC and she's willing to ban amorrow, Im not sure about the others though. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This unblocking is outrageous. These are the creators of WR, who could easily have used their power to end the harassment of Katefan0, and all of the misongynistic etc. conversations on that board, yet they instead at best did nothing, and often egged the main miscreants on. I see no hint that they are in way reformed, nor deserving of being unblocked; nor do I see any sign that there is a consensus on Wikipedia for this unblocking. Let them clean up Wikipedia Review first, and undo the damage done to Katefan0; then there will be grounds for unblocking. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak is a trusted member of the community and has been successful in reacclimating people to Wikipedia before. Maybe it won't work, but accounts can always be re-blocked if it doesn't. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 01:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I do trust Linuxbeak. But I distrust Blu Aardvark even more. We shouldn't be wasting our time trying to rehabilitate users who were banned for some pretty serious infractions (Blu Aardvark, for instance, made over a dozen sockpuppets and went on an unmitigated spree of vandalism, in addition to all of the anti-semitic remarks). We're an encyclopedia, not a rehabilitation clinic. When someone has proven that their presence is not in the best interest of writing the encyclopedia they need to be gotten rid of, not given endless chances to reform themselves, in the mean time pissing off lots of productive users (who may end up leaving) and wasting lots of time. --Cyde↔Weys 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If this unblocking of rightfully blocked users continues, we as Wikipedians are going to have to ask ourselves: who do we value more, banned users or administrators? I know, personally, there's only so much I'm willing to put up with before I decide my efforts just aren't worth it. Blu Aardvark did and said some terrible, unforgivable things. What's next, are we going to give Rgulerdem a third chance? Unblock Willy on Wheels? Administrators are only going to put up with so many returns of banned users before we just decide ... eh ... what is up with this place that it values banned users more than us? Why bother? --Cyde↔Weys 01:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Especially since it's only a few days when the whole Katefan0 incident occured. Garion96 ^(talk) 01:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It says above that, in fact, previous mentoring by Linuxbeak did not work out. Let Blu Aardvark and MSK remove all the personal attacks and defamation from WR; then they can ask to have their accounts here reinstated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to comment on this, I've seen some people in this thread saying, "Ohh, their off-wiki actions aren't relevant ... you can't even prove it was them." To that I say: bullshit. Our editors and administrators have received some pretty bad harrassment as a result of things that "only" happened on Wikipedia Review. That negatively affects the writing of the encyclopedia, and it is relevant as a consideration in deciding whether or not these banned users should be allowed to return. --Cyde↔Weys 01:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You started by stating the suppositions of others, followed by calling it "bullshit", but then failed to explain WHY it was bullshit. Anyone can go to any message board, can register under Wikipedia editor's names, and can say all manner of things. (Not that I think that's the case here, but it DOES set a bad precedent.) Nevertheless, I think MSK is not as deliberately toxic to Wikipedia as Blu Aardvark. MSK deserves another chance, but Blu Aardvark should never, ever be allowed anywhere near Wikipedia ever again, IMHO. wikipediatrix 01:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark and MSK are the same people here as on Wikipedia Review. Period. End of story. --Cyde↔Weys 01:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, I don't share your simplistic view of the matter. wikipediatrix 02:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it's too simple to say that they are who they are, so it must be more complex. There's actually a huge global conspiracy of dozens of different people who are all logging in in sequence and impersonating these two users. That must be it. --Cyde↔Weys 05:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's out of his control to remove all of those comments, so that might be a little steep as a request, to make him go from being a two-bit troll to a patron saint.-- The ikiroid  01:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You're saying one has to be a patron saint not to call people c***s, not to publicize efforts to lose people their jobs, not to post private photographs, not to discuss people's appearances, not to be involved in reporting people to the police? No, you need to be a stable, decent human being who understands the difference between right and wrong. They are both staff. They run the website. MSK founded it. They could prevent that material from being posted if they wanted to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you prove that MSK founded "Wikipedia Review"?? I'm pretty sure that it was founded by someone named "Igor" (who may or may not be a pseudonym of Daniel Brandt). wikipediatrix 02:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

MSK just banned amorrow from wikipedia review Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Now how about Daniel Brandt, the guy who runs that despicable Hivemind stalker website? --Cyde↔Weys 01:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't pretend to ourselves (or some people shouldn't pretend to themselves) that these two editors are suddenly transformed into good company by banning a couple of other trolls or clearing a few posts from a board. That doesn't change the fact that both have been a time, resource and emotion and editor sink for a long time, particularly MSK, and that they have a nearly-uncontrollable disposition to making such comments and taking such actions in the first place. There is often the possibility of rehabilitating poor editors: but some people, like people in jail for life without parole, are simply unfixable, and unwanted. They tried editing here, couldn't cut it, many of our finest people tried to help them, and couldn't do it, because they simply didn't want to be helped. Wikipedia is not therapy, is not a rehabilitation clinic, is not infinitely forgiving, does not need every last one of their carefully-placed 'good' edits, and is not a suicide pact. To allow either of these users back without an extensive period of near-sainthood, would require Wikipedia to be all those things at once. -Splash^talk 02:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't make sense to grant editing privileges back in response to administrative actions on another site which we have no control over. What would happen if, a week from now, MSK unblocked AMorrow, or if he started editing from another account name and that one wasn't blocked? Would we reinstate MSK's block here? It just doesn't seem workable to me. Blocking users on external sites can't be a condition for editing privileges here: only the user's own actions can be. And I haven't seen anything from these two editors that leads me to believe they're suddenly magically reformed. --Cyde↔Weys 02:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour, in principle, of letting sane banned users back onto the site. Someone like amorrow is utterly unwelcome and must never be allowed back here; but those with some semblance of sanity (Selina, Blu Aardvark, Lir, perhaps) are theoretically capable of being good users. The question is, are they willing to do so? Selina wasn't so bad, before she was blocked, that I'd be unwilling to countenance her return. Blu Aardvark ... eee ... I'll leave that question to the ones he was antagonising. However, I suspect they aren't quite ready to be civil and behave themselves here. Selina's note, pasted above, is I think a good example of what we can expect from her and BA: nonsensical abuse and a complete unwillingness to work with us. I'd like to see some evidence that they won't behave as they have done on Wikipedia Review before they're allowed to return. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 02:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the history - neither of these users was banned by the ArbCom, Jimbo, or other 'binding' resolution. They were indefinitely blocked by individual admins and nobody chose to dispute that... until now. The only basis in blocking policy for an indefinite block without action by some sort of official party is the 'community ban'... which to date has meant that their actions were so bad that no admin is willing to unblock them. Since an admin is willing to unblock these two a community ban is not in place and reblocking them is inappropriate wheel-warring. If you want these people gone the proper course is appeal to the ArbCom or Jimbo.

As to the actual individuals - I don't know much about Blu Aardvark so I won't comment. MSK was always a handful... we first met when I reverted a picture she added to the Jimmy Wales page, not of Jimbo, and she made disparaging remarks about my appearance... naturally we became fast friends. :] However, she also made some useful contributions and received some... questionable treatment from others. On this page, in the comments above, several admins have clearly violated civility and personal attack standards - as some did prior to her banishment. It becomes difficult to blame users for bad behaviour when those of us who are supposed to represent the best sometimes fall well short of the goal. Few people respond well to any sort of provocation... and MSK definitely isn't one of them. Do I expect all sunshine and flowers if she is let back? No... but if that were the standard there are some admins who'd be perma-banned too. I suspect that if MSK were given one 'free' incivil remark / personal attack / rule bending for every one directed at her she could never be blocked again... and that's a problem. We're not supposed to be harassing people to the point that they set up anti-Wiki sites. It may be 'easier' to kick 'problem' users around, but it is still wrong and we all end up paying for it. --CBDunkerson 03:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think CBDunkerson makes a very good point. This was a community ban which appears to no longer have community support. Lets attempt some good faith here, especially in Linuxbeak's direction -- he has indicated that this is for mentorship, not to set people loose. If there are any issues that arise, there will be eyes on the situation that can resolve those issues rather quickly. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 03:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What happens on WikipediaReview stays on WikipediaReview. We can't verify any comments made there, we can't verify any status made there. For all we know, Daniel Brandt is Jimbo using a proxy, because there is no way to verify evidence from WikipediaReview, or for that matter from off-wiki in general. It is obscene that we ask for censorship of a legitimate discussion forum that those in question cannot be verified to have control of. MSK and BluAardvark have both clearly made amends to the satisication of Linuxbeak, a bureaucrat... Jimbo can pretty easily be assumed to support it, as Linuxbeak hasn't been stripped of his bureaucratship for lying about Jimbo's stance on this issue... Let's give it a go. Worse case scenario, it does not take two minutes to revert all edits made and reblock. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 03:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You're a contributor too, Avillia, and it isn't a legitimate discussion forum. It's a cesspit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a tasty cesspit. Cocktail weenies and delectable sandwiches scattered about it, left like gingerbread crumbs for the unsuspecting child. I think. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 03:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"What happens on WikipediaReview stays on WikipediaReview." Wrong. You couldn't be more wrong. What happens on WikipediaReview spills over on Wikipedia and into real life all the time. Just ask Katefan0. Oh wait, you can't, because she's left... because of what happened on WikipediaReview. FeloniousMonk 03:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Because of Brandt, damn it! It was DANIEL LESLIE BRANDT who did that to Katefan0. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is Mistress Selina Kyle and Blue Aardvark who are publicizing it, and without that public element, Brandt almost certainly wouldn't do it, because it's the publicity he craves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It may be Brandt who placed the calls and harassed her employer, but it was Mistress Selina Kyle and Blue Aardvark who provided Brandt the message board to publish her personal details and left them up for all the world to see. I mean really, if the culpability in that relationship not clear to anyone, then they have no business offering amnesty. FeloniousMonk 04:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, what happens on WR doesn't stay on WR...there are real world consequences and real consequences here. What's obscene is what happened to Katefan01 and doubly obscene that two accomplices to what happened to Katefan01 are being defended here. I'm sickened by this. Rx StrangeLove 03:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also sickened by it. Anyone who isn't has no place on Wikipedia, in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What happens on WikipediaReview stays on WikipediaReview. I must say that the pure sophistry of this statement is mind-boggling: WikipediaReview isn't some J. Random BulletinBoard that happens to have some Wikipedia editors on it, its very reason for existence is Wikipedia, the alleged monitoring (snort) of what goes on here. And their track record (institutionally and of its members) is, to put it mildly, sufficiently disgusting to put them beyond granting them the slightest sliver of the benefit of the doubt. MSK and Blu Aardvark can't edit on Wikipedia? Too bad, so sad, actions have consequences. --Calton | Talk 04:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What happens on WikipediaReview most definitely does not stay on WikipediaReview. I've had complete strangers contact me, offwiki, in a highly unpleasant manner, who could only possibly have "discovered" me through Wikipedia Review. My sins, apparantly, are that I am a Wikipedia administrator and a woman (horrors!) who took a strong stand against a disruptive user. Said disruptive user, after being blocked here, was welcomed with open arms at Wikipedia Review and allowed to spread toxic comments and lies to his heart's content. Nobody questioned any of his statements there: as long as he was virulently opposed to Wikipedia, he was embraced, and I was demonized. I am a person of some public stature in my country, and I make my living on my reputation. People who run a Google search on my real name, seeking professional credentials, will now find toxic comments and lies spread about me, under my real name, at various random-seeming websites across the web, solely because of the vengance of a disgruntled banned user. This is real world damage, and Wikipedia Review had a hand in it. If we block people for legal threats because legal threats deter people from editing and getting involved in Wikipedia, we should block people for other forms of real, offwiki damage. I do not stand for the opinion that the right to edit Wikipedia is an inalienable human right. --woggly 07:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Real world damage should be met by real world law suit. WAS 4.250 12:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to weigh in on this one. It seems MSK has given a negative impression on the Wikipedia community, however, I feel some people are not looking at both sides of the story. To begin with here, I don't recall there ever being an RFAr or a mentorship against MSK, it just started with Sean Black's indef block of her stating she was a "troll, virtually no positive contribs, etc. etc." Not to pick on Sean here, but that is just not true (as he is probably aware of at this point), and if I remember correctly his block went through a series of unblockings/re-lenghthenings/so on and so forth. I feel it could have been handled differently, as I'm sure others do too. I would like to direct your attention to [5]. If this helps at all, it proves that MSK has made some positve contributions, and can show friendliness at times. Also to note MSK does have AS although the general agreement between us is that AS is to not interfere with editing Wikipedia. Those points being said, I'm afraid it's too late for a mentorship to be done on this user. MSK is unique in that she tends to be a bit more bold than usual when it comes to editing which is an issue. I would also ask ALL admins to remain civil as best you can as I have sat behind and watched the aforementioned admins (I won't name names) try to deal with her, and I feel the civily line was crossed too many times. As for WR; as it relates directly to Wikipedia it does affect us. I would recommend further talks with MSK about your concerns and I'm sure she'll comply if at all she wants back in on Wikipedia. --Pilot|guy 13:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to see that so many think Linux is a "trustworthy" editor and I note that I have no reason to believe otherwise. It's also nice to see that he has decided to set himself up as Mother Teresa, the Messiah or Betty Ford or whatever holy or not so holy redeemer one can think of. If such a mission lights his internal spirit-fire then, soibeit. But as Cyde noted -- this is an encyclopedia not a rehab clinic.

In any case, Linux showed himself to have one significant flaw: He did not exhibit the level of judgment that is expected from Wikipedia's administrators, in fact he appears to have given little though to the past actions of Blu or MSK and absolutely zero thought to how unblocking them would effect the community as a whole.

Quite frankly I'm sickened by this turn of events. This just raises far too many questions -- but I'll save them. For now. •Jim62sch• 19:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break for sanity's sake

BARF...that's how sick this crap makes me...Wikipedia review...what a farce...I tried to register but I assume they didn't like my Yahoo mailing address...the only reason I wanted to register was to tell a few folks there to kiss my ass. The community decided just recently to block these two folks and, well, I guess they are really here now to make Wikipedia better...har-de-har-har.--MONGO 04:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I’m not a fool. I’m not going to volunteer for an organization that welcomes people that are harassing me for protecting the organization. FloNight ^talk 04:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Me neither. I've had enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the organization does not welcome these people; for my part, personally, I extend them no welcome whatsoever. I believe, as of this writing, both have been reblocked. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between allowing to edit and welcoming.Geni 00:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That was my point. Wikipedia review has several key players that were banned and all for good reasons...did someone get the impression that I am in favor of the unblocking of ardvark and mistress, as I am most definitely not.--MONGO 05:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to ditto FloNight here ... Wikipedia needs to choose which to value more: its contributors or banned users. We're not some damn experiment in rehabilitation, we're an encyclopedia. Giving rightfully banned editors unlimited chances to "rehabilitate" is just causing lots of disruption. Has rehabilitation ever actually worked? Let's look at some previous cases ... MARMOT, Jaraxle, Shultz ... this is not a good track record. It's not worth losing actually valuable contributors due to harrassment from returning indefinitely banned users. --Cyde↔Weys 04:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cyde. The time and effort that this mediation will take could be more productively spent welcoming and grooming new editors who won't spend all of their time pissing over the encyclopedia. Nandesuka 05:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

FloNight has this exactly right. I cannot understand why we are saying that enabling the treatment that Katefan0 and Musical Linguist have gotten is acceptable, and that people who do so are welcome here. Jkelly 05:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. Credible, good faith volunteers here give significantly of their time and expertise, often to their detriment, to the project. And it is a sunk cost, they will never get it back. They should know that their efforts are appreciated and will not be squandered on experiments at resocializing and rehabilitation of known troublemakers who hold the community's values in contempt. FeloniousMonk 05:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. This whole debate is a microcosm of a much wider debate on justice and crime. Why do criminals get punished? To avenge their crimes? To discourage others from committing the same crime? To rehabilitate them? To protect the community from them? How should we balance the rights and welfare of the criminal against the rights and welfare of the victim? How should we determine that a criminal has been punished enough? People have been grappling with these questions for thousands of years. The probability of Wikipedia resolving them here is zero. We must abandon this arrogant quest to be the perfect rehabilitative justice system, and just do whatever will best get the encyclopaedia written. All things considered, it seems to me mind-numbingly obvious that the encyclopaedia will be better off if these people remain blocked. Snottygobble 06:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I added another section head above, to make editing a little more sane. Hope nobody minds. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not therapy. I wonder if Jimbo's "good luck" wasn't more like "be it on your own head". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just piling on the bandwagon: Wikipedia is not a clinic for rehabilitating social incompetants. I'm sure an organization like Habitat for Humanity would not let someone continue to volunteer if they ignored instructions and were rude to other workers. Why should we be different? Isomorphic 05:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Point of information, please. Did Jimbo actually approve of, grant permission, or in any way give special authority for linuxbeak to unilaterally and silently overturn a community ban? Technically, linuxbeak is within his rights, I think, but socially, what an astoundingly maladroit move. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Every admin has the authority to overturn a community ban. Community bans only last until an objection is raised, and LB objected. I don't have any strong opinion on this one (and I try to keep my head down on this sort of thing anyway), but LB didn't do anything wrong on a purely procedural level. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm just a newbie admin but I oppose bringing back MSK or BA, mentorship or no, until they demonstrate they ARE the same people here and there (Avilla, stop with the red herrings, there are ways to prove someone the same in both places) and then repudiate what they've done on WR and explicitly and publicly apologise. I abhor wheel warring but absent an explicit order from Jimbo that came out and said exactly what the circumstances of their return was, I would reblock them both. Yes I trust linuxbeak but I think he's been bamboozled. This whole thing of what happens in one place doesn't affect another place has come up in other communities and it can destroy them. Too many valuable contributors have been damaged by WR for me to want any part of users that have any standing there. ++Lar: t/c 06:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Linuxbeak was acting entirely in good faith. His optimistic belief in the potential of MSK and Blu Aardvark to be positive contributors to Wikipedia is impressive. But, as we've seen here today/tonight, the cost of bringing them back is just too high. They've thoroughly burned their bridges. They are unwelcome in this project. FreplySpang 06:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

FreplySrang has a point here- I don't think these are wise trade-offs. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 06:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The sickening irony would be that two editors, banned for posting personal attacks on wikipedia were allowed to return; and Katefan0, who embodied what a wikipedian could and should be, has been plucked from our midst. Let's stick a pin in this, and move on. The bans should remain in place. Mytwocents 06:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not dispute the good faith of Linuxbeak. What I dispute is the wisdom of his action. While no one individual editor can make or break this project, and thank goodness for that, the number of absolutely stellar editors who have withdrawn, or are thinking about it, is high. FloNight, SlimVirgin, KateFan0, Phaedriel... these are some of our very best. The cost is too high. Keep them banned. Whether there is cause to seek legal action against WR or whether that is a good idea is a different matter, but editing here is a privilege, not a right. This community has no need of the contributions of disruptive editors who agitate, foment trouble and trash good editors on other sites. As I said above, I have seen this before in other communities. ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Before anyone gets all misty-eyed about Mistress Selina Kyle

• User:Tony_Sidaway/Blocks on Mistress Selina Kyle

She was at it before her third day and never quit. --Tony Sidaway 03:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a question ... what even sparked this latest round of attempted rehabilitation? Was Linuxbeak approached by these two? Or did Linuxbeak do it upon his own initiative? If it was the former, I would be incredibly suspicious ... Cyde↔Weys 06:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The latter, I understand. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 07:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd bet the opposite. Too much like a bad 70's movie with pix of the victim and farm animals. •Jim62sch• 19:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Linuxbeak claims he did the approaching, though his wording is extremely vague. See his explanation much much earlier in this thread

"Yes, absolutely. I talked to Blu Aardvark on IRC this afternoon. I approached him, saying that I know that there are problems with Wikipedia, and I'd like to help find solutions, etc. He and I had a very civil and intellegent conversation, and the subject of him being blocked came up. I mentioned that we have a mentorship process to handle things such as this." -Linuxbeak

I'd be much more comfortable with this whole thing if it had taken place on Wikipedia instead of IRC, so that we could see exactly what the candidates for unblocking have said. It does affect all of us, after all. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as a response to what Blu Aardvark said on IRC ... I think Linuxbeak has been misled. Yeah, Blu Aardvark is capable of being civil in short doses. Once he gets into protracted discussions he just reverts to his same-old, same-old, though. I've interacted with Blu Aardvark before ... it started off civil and it ended with him getting kicked from #wikipedia after various anti-semitic remarks. Just because he says a few sentences that aren't incivil doesn't mean that he has rehabilitated. To stretch an analogy a bit ... we don't let murderers off scot-free just for saying they're sorry. --Cyde↔Weys 07:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I would agree with that. Furthermore, I note that it is not at all clear to me that this one has even done as much as say he was sorry. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel the need to respond to this falsehood. I was never kicked from #wikipedia after making anti-semitic remarks. I do not even recall ever intereacting with you on IRC. Your repeats attempts to smear me as an anti-semite are quite offensive, blatantly false, and I would request an apology. --72.160.81.89 07:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aarvark, why on earth would we let you back in, if you can still edit here? I note you made a comment at wikireview that you still log in to do some editing, but would prefer to use your old account. But you can create an account anytime you wish obviously.--MONGO 08:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo approving.

Linuxbeak is not only a administrator, but a bureaucrat. He is one of the most trusted members of Wikipedia, and I hold extreme doubt that he would lie about this endorsement for these two and risk his sysop status in the process. If nothing else, let's WP:AGF for this situation and assume that he has Jimbo's blessing until otherwise noted. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 07:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So because he has a title we're all supposed to bow to his wisdom? Doubtful. •Jim62sch• 19:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I trust Linuxbeak. That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to disagree with him. And I don't care if he has Jimbo's blessing or not; if he does, it may be a point in MSK and BA's favour, but is certainly not the end of any discussion. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 07:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. •Jim62sch• 19:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else find it kind of ironic that Avillia is commenting on this issue? Avillia, of course, is another user who did some pretty bad things, was indefinitely blocked, and was then given a second chance. --Cyde↔Weys 07:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not at all. The obvious rejoinder would be: he should know. Why shouldn't someone like Avillia be arguing for giving others a second chance? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 07:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did Jimbo approve of this by the way? All I see above is that he told Linuxbeak "good luck". While Jimbo doesn't usually speak with sarcasm, that phrase can be interpreted several ways. --bainer (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Trust bureaucrts to do bureaucrat things. Promote admins, rename users. When I look at RFB I don't support them to give blanket power just because they are "trusted". --pgk^(talk) 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone let me know on my talk page when this blows over? I'm dewatchlisting AN/I so I don't get dragged into this soul-consuming morass. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I know little of this case and make no comment on it. However I note that some users against Linuxbeak's unblock are the same users who have treated me rudely, poorly and with their versions of wikijustice.Mccready 09:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd fit quite well on Wikipedia review. El_C 09:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

El_C, snide remarks to Mccready are not going to help the situation. We want him to stay on Wikipedia and be a good editor. Please do not taunt him. FloNight ^talk 15:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Now it looks like SlimVirgin and FloNight are leaving wikipedia because of this. I feel so guilty Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not your fault, Aranda. --Pilot|guy 16:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not party to any discussion above, contained in diffirent sub-sections. But, the discussion, comments are observations appear really amazing to me - yes, an amazing way to build the sum total of human knowledge. I am sorry that I could not refrain myself from opening my mind and heart. Respectful regards to all! --Bhadani 17:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, a couple of banned editors who devote large segments of their time to another website created to attack Wikipedia and Wikipedians are being unilaterally unbanned by one admin against community consensus? What on earth for? How is this a positive move for the project, particularly since the net result appears to be the driving away of long-time editors who have greatly contributed to WP? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone has already said it, because this conversation is a confusing mess, but I believe SlimVirgin (talk • contribs) left wikipedia. She made her last edit here, cleared and protected her userpage, and has done nothing since.-- The ikiroid  19:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

FloNight (talk • contribs) and Phaedriel (talk • contribs) have done the same. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 19:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Phaedriel left before the unblocking of Aardvark and Mistress...right after Katefan0 left and she saw that those toilet plungers at WR started harping in on her.--MONGO 23:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a big loss for en.wikipedia. Garion96 ^(talk) 19:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Linuxbeak, I hope you're satisfied. SlimVirgin has left? Please, please, please discuss such things with the community before taking such unilateral action in future. Mentorship has failed repeatedly. Mike Garcia is repeatedly blocked for 3RR violations, and I begin to wonder if he isn't Johnny Vandal (after all, who else has such a hatred of Hephaestos?) And whoever tries to claim that what happens on Wikipedia Review stays on Wikipedia Review needs to talk to Phil Sandifer. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Additionally, he did post on Central AN and received support prior. See the moved segment above. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 20:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, really? From the logs, he announced it at 22:03, having unblocked at 21:59. So, hooey. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa whoa. Time out. "Wow, Linuxbeak, I hope you're satisfied." That hurts, Zoe. Are you trying to place SlimVirgin's leaving on me? It's not like I go to my secret underground lair with a armful of plans marked "How to screw people over". For your information this was supposed to be a way for us to eliminate enemies by making friends. I notice that at least one other person has blamed SlimVirgin's dramatic departure on me and has called for me to apologize. Uh, no. I'm not going to apologize for attempting to extend an olive branch, mend broken bridges and assume good faith, and I'm not going to apologize for SlimVirgin's departure because she's the one who left in a huff instead of sticking around and participating in further debate. Did I do something out of process? I might have, but I honestly don't know. Some say I have, some say I haven't. If I have, then please accept my sincere and humble apologies for not following established process. However, if you're going to blame SlimVirgin's actions on my attempt to do something that I saw as helpful and supportive, forget it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak, I don't doubt that you intended to do something positive, and that you did not intend SlimVirgin to leave, but using language like "left in a huff" to describe the departure of a valuable and conscientious admininstrator who was subjected to some horrifying abuse while the two people you have welcomed back stood by and watched when they had the power to do something about it is not helping the situation. SlimVirgin is, of course, responsible for her own decisions in whether she goes or stays; but you must certainly carry some responsibility for the fact that she felt undermined by your unilateral decision to unblock people who had enabled the posting of such filth about her and about people that she tried hard to help. And the timing of this unblock, when many of us are not just angry, but grieving about what happened to Kate can at best be described as insensitive. AnnH ♫ 08:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak, do you understand that your unblocking gives the message that it is okay to torment and abuse editors? Do you understand that your unblocking makes it clear that no editors here can feel at all supported when personally attacked? Jkelly 23:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Although I would not have unblocked those two we cannot blame Linuxbeak for anyone's actions but his own. Slimvirgin is a grownup. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anything about my statement, or even Zoe's, infantalises any of the editors who have departed over this. Linuxbeak has made it clear that an editor here does not have any reasonable expectation that abusive editors who enable stalking and harassment are unwelcome. Not discussing the matter beforehand with those editors who have been the target of months worth of harassment is disrespectful. I agree with FloNight; that makes it a perfectly reasonable decision to not want to invest further in the project. The unblocking is not contextless. Jkelly 23:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that Linuxbeak does not seem to understand the process for unblocking blocked users, as he says he doesn't know if he acted out of process. I'm not sure which process he thought he was using. -Will Beback 23:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Some people seem to think that I violated process by unblocking someone without discussing it first. Well, did I violate process? Tell me what I did wrong. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't violate process. You were perfectly within your rights, technically, to do what you did. What you did was violate the community; I doubt it was your intent, but the effect was an act of contempt for the community. Why couldn't you have at least talked first with the people who discussed and agreed with the bans? Do you have so little respect for their ability to make intelligent, informed decisions? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

LB, the blocking policy clearly requires that any admin fully discuss an unblock with the original blocking admin (or at AN/I, if appropriate) prior to unblocking anyone. Unless no one mentioned it, it appears that you violated that blocking policy. -Will Beback 00:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but i do not agree that it is perfectly reasonable. Linuxbeak's actions have been widely condemned by the community. To leave because of the actions of one admin who does not have the support of the rest of the community is silly. Linuxbeak does not speak for me or you or anyone else for that matter. If people leave because one person does something they do not like, then the are being altogether too fragile. Linuxbeak is not responsible for anyone leaving - they are. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's that simple. In this thread alone, I see support for Linuxbeak's actions from NicolasTurnbull, Ashibaka, Avillia, Ral315, bainer, Jaranda, Jareth, wikipediatrix, CBDunkerson Pilotguy, and A Man in Black, plus the second-hand rumors of support from Jimbo himself. Were I a victim of harrassment from these people, I don't think I'd see wide condemnation here. For the record, I join the voices of those who say this was just a dumb thing to do. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, and I have no opinion. I'm not really supporting anyone or anything here. What a mess. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I originally supported Linuxbeak's mentoring because from my personal experience with MSK and Blu, I thought they had a good prospect of rehabilitation. It seems that my personal experience with MSK was nowhere near the full picture, and I withdrew my support for unblocking him/her. I still think that with mentorship, rehabilitation would be possible for Blu. Note that rehabilitation for either user would probably include abandoning WR, or at least disavowing and blocking the worst users. --bainer (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak, I don't doubt you meant well; this can't be the outcome you intended. You hoped to eliminate enemies by making friends. I'm sure you still mean well; What do you hope to accomplish this time, with your "sincere and humble" non-apology? Is it supposed to make it easier for FloNight or SlimVirgin to come back, or to reassure others who are on the fence, or get some part of the encyclopedia written, or what? Sure, you are not solely responsible for their leaving. Others have left recently as well. It's not all on you that the project has trouble retaining good volunteers, and trouble getting rid of jerks. But your actions aggravated both problems, and some here support your actions. That probably won't reassure those who have been victims of harassment. I can't see what blaming SlimVirgin for leaving is supposed to do. You screwed up big time, and you, and a chunk of the community, seem oblivious to it. I would have hoped you would recognize your mistake, and work to correct it. It's unfortunate that you made self-justification a priority, and doubly unfortunate that you chose to blame others. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, I really don't need this. I'm not accepting any responsiblity whatsoever for SlimVirgin's departing from Wikipedia, not even a small bit. Was this incident a catalyst? Yes, it appears so. Was it my fault? No. To answer your post bit by bit:

What do you hope to accomplish this time, with your "sincere and humble" non-apology?

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.

Is it supposed to make it easier for FloNight or SlimVirgin to come back, or to reassure others who are on the fence, or get some part of the encyclopedia written, or what?

This is what I say to FloNight and SlimVirgin: I wish both of you well. I hope that we may encounter you sometime in the future in some other setting, and that they should know that they are always welcome to return to Wikipedia should they wish to do so.

Sure, you are not solely responsible for their leaving. Others have left recently as well. It's not all on you that the project has trouble retaining good volunteers, and trouble getting rid of jerks. But your actions aggravated both problems, and some here support your actions. That probably won't reassure those who have been victims of harassment.

As someone who has been harassed in real life for things that have happened on Wikipedia, I understand that it is very stressful. However, I think that my actions are a way for us to reduce this type of problem by addressing the very source of said problem. Eliminate the problem, gain a friend. Get an apology, accept said apology, move on.

I can't see what blaming SlimVirgin for leaving is supposed to do.

I can't see what blaming me for SlimVirgin leaving is supposed to do, either.

You screwed up big time, and you, and a chunk of the community, seem oblivious to it.

That's fine if you think so, because while I might have made some mistakes, including major ones, I don't regret a single thing. It was done in the spirit of diplomacy.

I would have hoped you would recognize your mistake, and work to correct it. It's unfortunate that you made self-justification a priority, and doubly unfortunate that you chose to blame others.

Tell me, what mistake is this that I made? How would I go and correct it? Enlighten me, and I mean that in all honesty. As far as self-justification being made a priority is concerned, it appears that the truth of the matter is that while I'm willing to admit that I made mistakes, you are making it a priority to prove it otherwise. Also, I don't think I blame anyone for anything in this case except for SlimVirgin being responsible for leaving on her own accord. It's not like I forced her to leave. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A. Apologize to SlimVirgin...B. Apologize to Flonight...C. Next time there is a ban seek information from the person or group that did the banning, rather than the person that was banned. If folks do the crime, they should do the time...numerous (not all) editors at WR are just there to vent about how woeful it is that this mean nasty cabal banned them, and to post personal information like a bunch sick stalkers.--MONGO 00:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A. No. Not my fault that she decided to leave. B. No. Not my fault Flonight decided to leave. C. Sure, I'll do that next time. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, gloves off...your selfish conceptualization...that you and only you could save the day for two banned users was a flagrant smack in the face to a number of people that banned these two...I see folks at WR claimed to have missed you, that you were "optimistic"...they are posting personal information about editors there and this is condoned at that site...maybe you are in the wrong forum.--MONGO 00:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Is editing an article a slap in the face to a previous editor? Things change.Geni 00:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Truly enlightening comparisons. Wow. El_C 01:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It is one you should consider. Heh if you don't want your block to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.Geni 01:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, just discuss it with me first, Geni. El_C 01:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop using IRC to circumvent the community, LB, enough is enough. I find it utterly preplexing that you couldn't bother to consult the people targetted by WR, nor the blocking admin/s. El_C 00:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

...uh... a sizable portion of the community is on IRC. I'm not circumventing anything. Again, I made an oversight. I should have notified those people first. It wasn't malicious, however. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought you apologized for violating process, but now it appears that you don't think you did violate policy. I encourage you to read WP:BLOCK more closely. Also, I agree with Beback; IRC is not wikipedia, no matter how many admins hang out there. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't claim malice, do try to assume good faith, I claimed gross carelessness and what strikes me as a rather unrepentent attitude. And no, IRC offers no records, you have to stop using it this way. El_C 00:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

IRC is not Wikipedia. Treating it like it is leads to problems like this. Please stop thinking that IRC is a substitute for the wiki. It is not. Nandesuka 01:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

LB, the policy requires that you fully discuss the unblock, not simply notify. -Will Beback 01:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I was not going to get involved in this, but Slim's reaction makes it necessary. If for no better reason than keeping Slim here, I strongly favor indef blocks of Selina and Ardvark. Even if Selina and Arvark's only edits were their few productive ones, Slim would still be orders of magnitude more useful to the project. Unblocking these two users is simply ridiculous. Given the very low probability that rehabilitation will work, the cost of unblocking them is way too high. JoshuaZ 20:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And I didn't notice earlier, but Flo has reacted as Slim has. To even consider losing two of our most useful editors over this nonsense is, I don't know what. I'm appalled and don't have the words to express it. JoshuaZ 20:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Phaedriel. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Phaedriel was mainly because of Brandt Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the policy mentioned in Wikipedia:Banning policy that if even a single admin is willing to unblock, then there does not exist a community consensus is far too strong a requirement for consensus, as the above discussion shows. I have proposed it be changed here. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the blocking policy, note that it also requires an unblocking admin to discuss "the matter thoroughly in advance with the blocking admin, and with other admins on WP:AN/I if appropriate." I think if that had been done in this case there would have been a different outcome. -Will Beback 20:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

For some reason I cannot find that phrase on the policy page. -lethe ^{talk +} 21:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's here: WP:BP#If_you_disagree_with_a_block. Note that's the blocking (as opposed to banning) policy. Petros471 21:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Well, that mitigates somewhat the need to change the policy, instead, let's just ask Linuxbeak to pay a little more attention to policy. Though I still think the offending sentence is potentially harmful. -lethe ^{talk +} 21:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am rather saddened by the display of poor faith here relating to Linuxbeak's mentorship attempt of Blu Aardvark and MSK; especially since I was, technically, the blocking administrator of Blu Aardvark and have voiced my support towards mentorship - although, in actuality, it was Kelly Martin who was the blocking admin. The point is that nobody has yet explained how placing these users on mentorship probation could be dangerous to Wikipedia provided the users' contributions are watched with adequate assiduity. I cannot emphasise this enough, why cannot we just show some compassion and common amicability and assume good faith that these users are willing to reform? Has WP:AGF been neglected in the great stampede that is the onslaught of expediency over consideration? To hell with policy. Policy is not gospel. It is negotiable; Wikipedia is not some rule-ridden mechanism that operates solely according to the rules - which would, after all, be untenable since the block was applied in the first place with only de facto consensus. I don't think Linuxbeak was at fault over the matter; sure, perhaps more talk page messages would have helped... but that is no reason why the idea of rehabilitiating these users is out of the question. The day Wikipedia becomes hell-bent on creating enemies, and refusing reform, is the day the ethos that drives our project rots to a horrible inferno of self-immolation. Cultivating enemies is suicide for any project. I would please implore you, ladies and gentlemen, to look at the bigger picture. This isn't anything to do with compassion: it is to do with the willingless to permit change. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nichoals, you can't ignore common sense and you can't ignore the harm that WR inflicted on valued editors. I'm saddned that you go on at such length without touching on these crucial point (as you failed to on IRC, before and after you kicked me), instead you appear to centre on rather legalistic arguments regarding AGF. This is saddening. And the double standard you showed Telrias, that was totally out of order. El_C 02:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

ElC: Please inform me of how I am ignoring common sense. The issue over the actions of Wikipedia Review editors is entirely separate to the matter of the behaviour of people on Wikipedia. The point is those editors might as well edit as anon IPs, but would they still be a "harm" to Wikipedia? We cannot go around judging people's actions outside Wikipedia in order to determine whether they are banned or not here - else we would have an endless witch-hunt of people dredging up each other's private lives in a justification of the other party being blocked (as we get on many RfCs/RfArs). People's activities outside of Wikipedia are frankly immaterial. With regard to "the harm that WR inflicted on valued editors" - WR has been trollish, I agree; but not intrinsically harmful, and as I describe above, external activities are not within our purview - and neither, I might point out, is IRC activity. Regarding "legalistic" arguments, it is the exact opposite that I wished to convey - that policies are negotiable - but when it comes to matter such as good faith I see no reason why it should be suspended. The double standard you refer to in relation to Talrias eludes me; please elaborate further. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen how many chances both editors have had in their block logs, MSK most particularly? What suggests that this time things will be different? Editors have spent vast quantities of time and emotional resource on these two trolls before, to absolutely no avail. We certainly can take account of actions outside of Wikipedia when the very existence of those actions is conditioned on what happens on Wikipedia. We shouldn't pretend that WR has nothing at all to do with Wikipedia, or that the actions taken there are in any way unrelated to what happens here. -Splash^talk 02:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel it doesn't really matter whether this time the editors behave differently, provided they're properly watched and hastily rebanned if they renege upon their promise to behave. I see nothing to be lost in so doing, since the moment they misbehave they can be banned again, and any bad contribs rolled back. That's the glorious thing about a wiki: everything, including bans, can be changed on an ad hoc basis. Whether events happen as a consequence of Wikipedia or not really makes no difference - it is still not within our sphere of operation. We could otherwise claim that any action relating to Wikipedia that occurred elsewhere could be scrutinised towards a ban, which is frankly incorrect. Wikipedia Review does, in fact, have nothing to do with Wikipedia - the Foundation doesn't run it, and frankly their own little exercise of mutual trollish stimulation on their message board is their own business. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas, I simply do not view WR, or #wikipedia for that matter, as existing in a seemingly seperate universe. El_C 02:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What is lost, clearly, is the time and energy that will, we can presume with near certainty, be spent on watching them, and having to justify to certain groups of people why a troll has been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-blocked (and that's probably not enough re-s for MSK). What has already been lost is vast quantities of such time and energy (perhaps not yours, thus your enthusiasm to have them around again). If these editors have suddenly become loving little pussycats, they should have absolutely no trouble getting themselves some new usernames. If nothing else, this would demonstrate, quietly and without fanfare, that they are miraculously now dedicated to Wikipedia. -Splash^talk 02:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding SlimVirgin

Recently, I have come under considerable controversy for the temporary unblocking of two previously blocked users: Mistress_Selina_Kyle and Blu_Aardvark. This action was supported by some and strongly opposed by others. I will address this issue first.

While I believe that both users are in fact redeemable and able to be brought back into the community, there are those who strongly disagree with me. Some include some of the people that I put the utmost respect in. Others that I have the utmost respect for have supported my efforts. Still more people that I respect have stated that they are indifferent to the situation but wish me the best of luck.

The recent discussion on the admin noticeboard has been one of typical drama. This was expected, although the specific outcome of said drama wasn't totally expected. I feel that there has been some shifting of focus from the discussions of the blocks to SlimVirgin leaving. Before I continue, I will say this right now: I apologize for acting in such a way as to offend people. I'm sorry that my actions have caused harm, however slight, to people. It wasn't my goal or purpose, but apparently it was an unpleasent side effect.

SlimVirgin decided to leave about 7 hours after I posted my intent. Several people have placed responsibility on me, citing my actions as a direct result. To this, I strongly object. My actions were at the most a catalyst or the straw that broke the camel's back. It might have contributed towards her deciding to leave, but I was in no way responsible for her deciding to leave. As a matter of fact, I take no responsibility for her actual action of leaving. Some people have told me to apologize to her, but while I will do so, I feel that this is a matter of people wanting to place the explosion of the gunpowder magazine on a spark.

SlimVirgin: if my actions contributed to your decision to leave Wikipedia, I apologize that it was so, and please take comfort in the fact that I meant no harm. However, if it be your choice to leave, then I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.

Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand what you did that made us so hurt and angry? --FloNight ^talk 15:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. These people were involved with Wikipedia Review and either directly or indirectly flung attacks at you. I know how it is to be harassed. As a matter of fact, I've been harassed over Wikipedia in real life. It's stressful, annoying and insulting. I've also been harassed online (an example: a ton of those usernames at Special:Listnames). My experience with being harassed is that when people who have harassed you are willing to make amends, it is in everyone's best interest to give them this chance. That was part of my logic, at least. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 16:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope! Linuxbeak, just as I thought. You don't understand at all. Drop me an email when you are ready to listen to me and not tell me what you know. FloNight ^talk 19:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is why you should have at least consulted with the people who had been harassed. That's where you crossed the line; you were accepting amends that weren't yours to accept. You can forgive those who have trespassed against you; you cannot forgive those who have trespassed against someone else. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I just want to give Linuxbeak my strong support for being brave enough to be forgiving. None of us really knows whether these two users he unbanned can be remediated, but the only way we'll ever find out is by trying. I'm glad he was willing to try, even though nobody else was.

We all know that WP:BLOCK insists that blocking is not a punishment, but let's be honest and admit that it is often used as such. I'm very happy to see that at least one admin is willing to follow the spirit and letter of the rules by giving people a second chance.

I am sorry that User:SlimVirgin and User:FloNight would rather leave than participate in such an effort, but with all due respect, maybe it's all for the the best. Wikipedia needs admins with thicker skins and a willingness not to harbor grudges. If these admins realize that they can't live up to that ideal, then their departure may well be a good thing. Al 17:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Al, I think your comments about SlimVirgin and FloNight are unnecessarily inflammatory and off-topic. I can't see how negative judgements of either administrator could have a constructive effect on this discussion. --Allen 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you've misread my comments, then. I'm not saying that Slim and Flo are horrible people who need to go at any cost. I'm not even saying they're generally bad admins.

All I've said is that they were very wrong to take offense at Linuxbeak's efforts to show forgiveness. I would much rather that they understood and accepted what LB is trying to do. It bothers me very much that they have apparently decided they'd rather give up on the project than accept the fact that LB is acting in good faith and deserves a chance.

In short, if you think my comments are inflammatory, then I guess I wasn't clear enough initially, though I think I've clarified things now. As for being off-topic, I'm not sure how you mean that. As far I can tell, I spoke directly on the topic. Al 17:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Alienus's sentiment. I really praise the actions of Linuxbeak. He acted in the true spirit as a bureaucrat to heal the problem and assume good faith, by personally mentoring and recuperate users who made mistakes in the past. If we allow previous good editors to have a try and edit on a contigency basis and it still fails, then they will be re-blocked, and any harm can be undone. So, there is no danger. Since there's little to be lost and much to be gained, there is no reason to oppose this logically--only emotionally and out of a sense of being vindictive. This is what we want to get away from. 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 we owe to 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. I really don't think SlimVirgin is going away. She seems like a good editor and from my interactions I have no complaints. However, I've had very limited interaction with her so others complaints may be true. I don't know but they are not really relevant in this case. I truly believe that SV is only bluffing, that it's a bit of an emotional outburst, which is a rather rash. I think as soon as she cools down she will be back. This threat of leaving is a well-known phenomenon and it has served a purpose to make her protest known in the strongest terms, and help to get what she wants in the conflict she is having with other admins. I think this is a classic example of this: http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?GoodBye So, SV will be back after a break, and all this posturing blaming LB is not warranted.Giovanni33 14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoah, being an admin you need to have a hard skin I think. But to deal with the kind of crap they had thrown at them is something different. Garion96 ^(talk) 17:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. Al 17:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, it sounds just lovely to talk about "being brave enough to be forgiving" and "giving people a second chance". However, there is nothing "brave" about "forgiving" someone who was abusive towards someone else. If I hear about a molested altar boy or his mother forgiving the offending priest, I might be impressed at the courage. If I hear about a bishop forgiving him and giving him another chance, without even consulting his former victims, I do not feel overwhelmed with admiration. And it is extremely inaccurate and misleading to talk about "a second chance" for people who have had second, third, fourth, and fifth chances. And it is nothing less than offensive to imply that the problem is that Slim and Flo are harbouring grudges and don't have thicker skins — especially coming from someone who has already shown (admins can see the deleted edits from KHM03's talk page and from Alienus's talk page as well as Alienus's comments on SimplePilgrim's talk page) that he doesn't have a problem with websites being set up to harass editors. AnnH ♫ 09:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Still more people that I respect have stated that they are indifferent to the situation ... I'm sorry that my actions have caused harm, however slight, to people. — This hardly reads as an apology to me, it almost reads like a provocation; I'm highly dissapointed. I now no longer have confidence in Linuxbeak's decisionmaking. I think the ArbCom should look into his actions. I suspect opinion among the IRC crowed, which I find disturbingly self-affirming, differs sharply from that of the community at large, to the detriment of the project. El_C 20:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

First up, I don't think we should let the romans practice divide et imperia. Cool down.

I've went and looked at both wikitruth and Daniel Brandts hivemind page. I actually roughly found what I had been suspecting. I'll certainly discuss this with you, but offwiki. Kim Bruning 21:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a time to be cool, and there is a time to be blunt. And no off-wiki discussions with moi until further notice, sorry. El_C 21:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is support for the idea, I'll be filing an RfAr over Linuxbeak's actions and the events which ensued. What do editors not actively involved in IRC think? El_C 22:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't possibly be thinking an RFAr will improve this situation. --Pilot|guy 22:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would'nt I think this? Your opinion has been noted. El_C 22:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom seems a bit extreme. Bad behaviour warrants an RfC, while ArbCom is for flouting policy. I don't think Linuxbeak has done the latter, whatever I might think of the level of respect he shows the community (how did this guy get b'cratship?). -lethe ^{talk +} 22:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I certainly note them craefuly, but at the same time, I am also interested in what those not active on IRC think (sorry, I know that sounds discourteous). El_C 22:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't consider myself an IRC regular, though I do visit about once a month to get questions answered in real time. -lethe ^{talk +} 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To be more blunt, I simply do not think an RfC can work in this case, because we cannot have non/active-in-IRC-community designations for editors, and IRC can deploy many people at once, thus, making related opinions appear to be greater in number than they would otherwise; then they actually are. El_C 22:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the groupthink that develops on IRC is counterproductive, and shouldn't be allowed to be put forth as policy by higher-ups here on WP. But what can be done about it? -lethe ^{talk +} 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't afford to be blunt, unlike El_C. I'd cause too much disruption. :-P (In short, I'm not falling for it ;-) ). Kim Bruning 22:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No doubt caused by your, uh, ahem, theory you're promoting... FeloniousMonk 17:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I support El C's line of reasoning. There is no bigger slap in the face of constructive editors than finding administrators willing to intervene against them, making themselves the tools of vandals like Mistress Selina Kyle. So long as admins act appropriately—protecting constructive editors and showing incompetent and disruptive editors the door—vandals are manageable nuisances. (Personally, I'm mildly amused by the attacks on my edits by the crackpots and LaRouche cultists at Wikipedia Review[6].) The problem only becomes unmanageable when admins fail to play their proper role. Some adminis intervene on behalf of vandals out of mere naivety; worse, others protect vandals because they truly have an affinity for them. As we saw with the lynchmob berating Kelly Martin and Snowspinner last year, there is a large contingent of admins, particularly the teenagers uninterested in content editing, who conceive of Wikipedia in exactly the same manner as users like Mistress Selina Kyle: as an social networking site, not an encyclopedia. In the end, these adminis probably cause far greater harm in the project than the vandals themselves. 172 | Talk 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

An outside opinion. Maybe I should not have posted here – I am not an admin, and I do not have full knowledge of what these banned users had done. However it seems to me that the campaign against LunixBeak grew completely out of proportion to what he did. (Which, at worst, is a courtesy violation of not discussing his unblock with the blocking admin).

I have deep respect for what LunixBeak tried to accomplish. Whatever these banned users did, I believe it is never impossible to make amend (on their part) and forgive (on our part). If LB agreed to supervise/mentor them, I would have given him (and them) a chance. I do not see what big harm it could have done – but I see big potential benefits, including making WP Review a less hostile site.

Finding some offensive comments on WPR and blaming them on these users on the ground that they allegedly own WPR is the same as finding some offensive comments on WP (which I am sure can be found) and blaming them personally on Jimbo as WP site owner.

If I can make a slightly off-topic comment, it seems to me that while WP goes out of the way to give multiple chances to clear vandals (multiple warnings before even short blocks), for controversial editors (those who argue with admins, defend unpopular viewpoints etc), situation can escalate to full ban very quickly. If WP were more forgiving, maybe we would have fewer hate sites? And are we sure that difficult editors would necessarily have negative impact on the articles?

SlimVirgin was probably a very efficient, “no-nonsense” administrator, but it seems to me she was rather eager to use her ‘Block” button. If I had to stand a trial, I would not want her to be my judge! But I wish WP had more admins like LunixBeak. Please, let us not start a witchhunt against him?--Vlad1 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRC cabal

I've just been banned from IRC (I'm unable to tell by whom). Is there a procedure for me to launch a complaint against this type of censorship? El_C 01:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I know this isn't what you're asking, but perhaps you should send a thank-you note instead of a complaint, since it is saving you from a potentially infinite timesink of pointless wanking. Nandesuka 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA, User:Nandesuka. Thanks. El_C 01:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC) I appear to have misread that as an attack against myself. My sincere apologies. El_C 02:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

#wikipedia is under the direct control of the Foundation, in theory. enwiki procedures are therefore largely irrelevant. You could complain to the Foundation (e.g., Jimbo), or perhaps one of the stewards (not sure about them). On a more technical level, the people who currently hold privileges sufficient to remove operator status from someone are: grunt, sannse, cyrius, Apple, Xirzon, karynn, Linuxbeak, James_F, Raul654, TimStarling, Mark_Ryan, FennecFoxen, DavidGerard, Angela, Essjay, JimboWales, Anthere, Snowspinner, and AdamBishop (all those being their IRC handles, of course, but most of their enwiki identities are pretty obvious). If you have trouble with the one who kicked you (I believe you've been made aware of his identity?), you could try asking one of them to remove his op status. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It is? I wasn't aware #wikipedia was controlled by anyone but Freenode and the owners of the channel. --Golbez 03:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

that's an Official Wikimedia Foundation venture... anything that starts with #wiki* or #wp* is, by arrangement with Freenode, a wikimedia channel. Thats why they bumped the CVU out of #wp-en-vandalism, a non-wikimedia group operating a channel reserved for the foundation. -M^ask 03:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

First just figure out why you're blocked, sometimes there's just technical reasons. Checking now. Kim Bruning 20:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You were kickbanned by NicholasT:

* ElC was kicked by NicholasT (Please come back when you have learned your manners)

unlike wiki bans, an irc "ban" is actually more like a temporary block. a k-line is permanent. They are typically shorter than wiki-blocks, and serve a similar purpose: to make sure you wait and cool down before you come back.

You were either manually or automatically unbanned just a little while later. You're welcome to come back to IRC at any time. Tempers tend to flare a bit more on irc, but temporary misbehaviour is forgotten a lot quicker too. I'm sure it won't happen again, on either side, right? :-) Kim Bruning 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The way things seem to play out there, I'm never coming back to IRC, ever. El_C 21:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen figured out what happened on IRC, in part. I still need some time to talk with people. Kim Bruning 22:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, yes, Bishonen is brilliant. He means that to my own surprise I eventually found an IRC log file in the deep innards of my computer and figgered out how to make it load. Getting smarter every day. Bishonen | talk 00:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC).

Yeah, one day you'll just take over. Then it'll be Bishipedia. ;-) Kim Bruning 07:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that anyone will care what I think, but I don't use IRC and have no plans to start, and the idea that significant decisions are being (or might be) made there is troubling, at the very least. Thatcher131 23:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. IRC is not Wikipedia, neither is the mailing list. Please make all decisions transparently, not in hidden alcoves. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The mailing list is still officially a descision making tool. IRC is still not. IRC is sometimes used to discuss situations and gather support for on wiki-tasks though. "Who can help me edit XYZ?".

IRC is like any form of communication, it has its own upsides and downsides. As long as people use it wisely, I have no trouble with the public IRC channels.

For completeness, I have to point out that there are also a number of *closed* irc channels however. One is used by the counter-vandalism-unit and is semi-closed, and the other is #wikipedia-en-admins, which is open only to admins. The latter was originally created under instructions from Dannyisme.

Some wikis also have a closed admin mailing list, though en.wikipedia is not one of them.

Kim Bruning 07:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The nature of IRC - private, backchannel, lack of public record - that's caused this very problem here. So no, IRC is not like any form of communication used at Wikipedia. It's use as a policy tool is clearly inappropriate. FeloniousMonk 17:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to disparage IRC in any way, it clearly has valuable and appropriate uses. I'm concerned about discussing banned users and calling the results "community consensus", for example. Thatcher131 18:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disgust

That summarizes my reaction to those Wikipedia Review goons driving out Katefan0, Phaedriel, SlimVirgin, and FloNight, among others. I have to say, allowing those goons onto Wikipedia isn't worth losing those admins, which is why I'm glad that Selina and Blu Aardvark were blocked again. Wikipedia Review has always been a charming cauldron of simmering hatred and resentment, but they've crossed the line. I'm tempted to push for banning everyone on Wikipedia who posts on WR until they ban Brandt from their forum and formally apologize to the Wikipedia community. — Philwelch t 01:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you give me more information about where to read up on this matter. I'm rather ignorant on this stuff, but I have high regard for the people mentioned above. I'm not very well in the loop with this stuff. Thanks. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Brandt isn't WR per say. He could do most of his stuff without them.Geni 01:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I got over the emotion of the moment, but I'm still disgusted when I think of Blu Aardvark's Amorrow's gloating comments when Katefan0 was driven off Wikipedia. That he's removed some things he did (such as the web page dedicated to Daniel's findings) is a sign that he has some restraint, but if we're going to start mentoring him, I think there should have been a little more time between his gloating about Katefan0's leaving and the start of his rehabilitation. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Duh, not that this matters, but for some reason, I thought Blu Aardvark was Amorrow on WR, which he's not. In that case, much of my comments above w.r.t. this thread and Linuxbeak's actions are largely irrelevant. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil's proposal seems sensible, and I have half a mind to bring it up on the village pump policy page. JoshuaZ 02:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil: We can't ban people on the basis of their private activities. It's not cricket. We will otherwise end up with a McCarthy-like scenario whereby we begin banning people because of perceived infractions in the outside world. I dislike Wikipedia Review intensely, but that does not mean we can intrude into the realms of outside Wikipedia to determine whether or not people are permitted to edit - that's frankly ridiculous. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Driving people off Wikipedia is not a private activity. Having police harass Wikipedia editors as retribution for a block is not a private activity. Organizing and encouraging this disruption is not a private activity. Nick, these people are a serious threat to our administrators and to the project, and we cannot just sit by and let these people pretend to be Wikipedians while plotting to destroy Wikipedia and driving away valuable contributors. — Philwelch t 02:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I still refuse to accept the proposition that Selina should be punished for not actively suppressing such activities' occurrence on her website. Brandt happens to frequent WR, but he's targeted Wikipedians before he joined it and would continue if banned from it. Compelling editors to take feel-good measures against people on their own websites is too much.

If you want to bring out things that Selina and Blu have actually done themselves, fine. Selina has insinuated that SV isn't actually Jewish and is really a neo-Nazi; when I confronted her (Selina) on IRC with the analogy of saying someone is Hitler because they're a vegetarian, she conceded that I did have a point there. Saying things like that is frankly stupid, but it's not so harmful that it mandates repercussions on Wikipedia itself; note how soundly WP:NPA-offline got shot down. (MSK didn't call SV a cunt, by the way; that was sgrayban.)

Off-Wikipedia insults are not sufficient to merit action on Wikipedia itself; stalking, harrassment, sure, but not just insults or dubious accusations. Libel, too, might merit action, but do keep in mind that libel is defined quite narrowly: it must be demonstrably false, it can't be clearly cast as an opinion, it must be made either with knowledge that it was false or reckless disregard for whether it was false. Suggesting that SlimVirgin might be a neo-Nazi based on house-of-card logic is ridiculous, but unlikely to be libelous under US law. And frankly, SlimVirgin has made some rather dubious accusations herself on occasion, to the tune of suggesting a conspiracy on the part of IRC users to support the illegal actions of certain posters at Wikipedia Review.

I would say: when it comes to off-site activity, only ban people for either illegal and Wikipedia-damaging activity, or lawsuits targeted against the Foundation or its contributors. When there's doubt about whether something's illegal, let the alleged perpetrator have the benefit of the doubt. Is this extremely forgiving? Sure. But I think it's the only way to avoid chilling valid criticism of the project and its members. Things like "libel" are, to laymen, far too vague to be applied without great care. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see how anyone can in good faith belong to both the Wikipedia community and the Wikipedia Review community, when the WR community is focused not on criticizing Wikipedia, but on harassing our editors and destroying us. — Philwelch t 05:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Put it this way. A rational person could believe that banning the Wikipedia-haters (i.e., shutting down the forum) would have no effect, because it's plausible they'd go start another forum. That would, if anything, likely be worse than WR, which is run by comparative moderates (i.e., they don't really hate Wikipedia). Therefore, there's no reason to assume that MSK and Blu are in any way endorsing the views of various harrassers and defamers. They may (Blu Aardvark told me something to this effect) believe, in good faith, that banning these people is totally pointless and would accomplish nothing. If that's the case, is it reasonable to ban them indefinitely?

But to be honest, we fundamentally disagree. I'm strongly in favor of free speech as a principle, and I'm strongly against holding people accountable for their associations alone. You object to (quasi-)defamatory statements more than I do, and you judge people by whom they associate with. I think you're being unjust and repressive, you think I'm supporting harrassment and defamation. We're not going to agree, and there's not really any point in continuing this vein. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Worse than WR, eh? What, they'd drive valued and trusted administrators off the project by threatening to harass their employers? Oh, wait...

As I mentioned before, WR used to be nothing more than a charming little cauldron of hatred and resentment. Back when it was just banned users whining about their bans we could safely ignore them. But what they did to Katefan0 crosses the line. Katefan0 was never controversial, and never did anything to deserve what happened to her. She is the victim of a vindictive attempt to attack Wikipedia itself. So far, no one on Wikipedia Review (and I've read their forums) has denounced this action. At best, they've objected on tactical grounds. Instead, they encouraged Brandt, egging him on to interfere in Kate's life even after she left Wikipedia.

Wake up, Simetrical. The world's changed while you were napping. — Philwelch t 18:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the Wikipedia Review and Brandt is causing some horrible things, already caused the loss of 5 users including SlimVirgin who was one of wikipedia bestever admins, and I'm myself was blackmailed by Brandt himself a few weeks ago. MSK banned amrrow and left the Review what I see and should be givin one last chance if she doesn't comment in that evil site anymore. I now endorse the full block on Blu and blocks on the main Review editors. This needs to stop. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it looks to me like Slim is still around. In any case, Nick has a point. What people do outside of Wikipedia is their business. What they do here is admin business. If I curse Jimbo out while singing in the shower, that's between me and my tiles, but if I do it on his biographical article, it's a different matter, right? Al 02:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, there is a big difference between singing about another editor in the shower, and participating in an online forum that attacks other editors and reveals their personal details. If I know you in real life, and discriminate against you when you come up for a job, or insult you in the local pub, that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. If as a result of my encounter with you here, I set up or participate in a webstite where you are attacked and abused, your privacy is violated and your real name and address published, and I urge people to write to your employers, or I stand by and watch while others do so (while I, as administrator, have the power to intervene), then I fully expect to have to answer for it on Wikipedia. AnnH ♫ 09:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Still around? Do tell. She hasn't edited since blanking her user page last night. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, Al, I'd like to know what the hell you're talking about as well. And your tiles don't have a forum online. --Golbez 02:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to Al: Yes, but what if Jimbo is in the next shower stall, and you're cursing him over something that happened on Wikipedia? To me, that would be a community concern, as are attacks on Wikipedians by Wikipedians over Wikipedia issues, even if the attacks take place outside of Wikipedia. --Allen 02:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Up to a point, Alienus. When something outside Wikipedia becomes disruptive to the point where multiple of our most productive editors are leaving over it and many editors are being harrassed in real life, what happens outside does matter. Ultimately, we should act in the way that is best for Wikipedia. Keeping our heads in the sand and pretending that these events aren't harming the Wiki does not help matters. JoshuaZ 02:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that we've lost some of our best admins, including SlimVirgin, to this ridiculous situation- it saddens me beyond any measure of believe.

However, it doesn't surprise me. Wikipedia is huge- and its getting larger every day. Given the vast number of people that are involved in the project, it's to be expected that disgruntled and off-kilter individuals will create things like the Wikipedia review. That it hasn't happened sooner is a blessing, but now that it HAS happened, it's something that Wiki needs to address.

There are people who are advocating ignoring the events that have transpired, claiming the mantra "What happens outside of Wikipedia has no bearing here". However, that's not the case, as is clearly evident in the past few days. The actions of WR have without a doubt had a damaging effect here, and (given that Wiki will continue to grow) this is only the beginning. Unless we can find a way to protect Wiki from the actions of former disgruntled users, more sites like this will pop up, we'll keep losing more and more good admins and the project will suffer immensely. -- Daniel Davis 03:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Silencing critics won't help a thing; If WikipediaReview dies, another will spawn in it's place, until we die off or become the perfect project. However, there is something to be said for that mantra. We have always held the belief true and close that what happens off of Wikipedia (aside from foundation affairs) shouldn't have a bearing here. Many controversial decisions have been made because based on that belief. If there is consensus to extend evidence and such to Off-Wiki interaction (Which there clearly is /not/ at this time, judging by the poll relating to WP:NPA), then let's apply that globally and re-examine major actions taken on these grounds. If not, then we should not use off-wiki information period. This is one situation in which a double standard cannot be allowed, both because of the actual possibility of abuse and the criticism we will generate. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 03:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Avillia, the first move was theirs. They were the ones who conflated on-wiki and real-life, by harassing Katefan0 at her place of business. Reaction in kind only makes sense. --Golbez 04:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of the polling on WP:NPA occured before we had multipel admins run off the Wiki by WR and related antics. It is unreasonable to use that poll to demonstrate some sort of consensus. JoshuaZ 04:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't respond directly to everything that was said, because there's just been too much of it, but I also can't ignore what people have said to me.

I think we have an obligation to distinguish between free speech (even when it involves cursing out admins and saying Wikipedia sucks donkey elbows) and harmful action (such as revealing the private information of admins). In short, we must distinguish between insult and injury. Once we draw this line, we must then completely ignore all actions that are allowed, no matter how much they offend us.

If we fail to do this, then Wikipedia admins will continue to punish people for their constructive (and, yes, sometimes not so constructive) criticisms, which will have a chilling effect on the voluntary contributions of visitors. Remember, we're not paying these editors (or admins), so we have to be gentle with them. People will contribute only to the extent that they believe the system is fair and reasonable. Yes, we can and should stop people from harming Wikipedia, but we can't stop them from criticizing it, however rightly or not.

I say that we must grow thick skins and focus on our true goal, which is to improve Wikipedia, not punish the infidels that dare insult us. More than that, we should filter out the nonsense and listen for valuable suggestions hidden inside the complaints. There is much we do wrong and much that we can do better. And remember, even the perception of unfairness by admins causes harm. Al 04:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, then, we're all hosed, because the world is full of people with authority issues (as well as people with a faulty understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia) that will automatically intepret any corrections of their behaviour on Wikipedia as unfair and will start crying like children deprived of their rattles no matter how carefully we try to handle things. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the problem lies in regard to Wikipedia critics, nor do I think anyone here is proposing that we "silence the critics". In any kind of an organization or "coming together" of the minds, the words of a critic can be oftentimes crucial in lending an ear to things that need improvement and change. Using that information can lead to improvements and fixes that might otherwise go unheeded. In that way, a site's harshest critics can be one of its strongest assets. In reality problem lies in those who are hell-bent on the destruction of Wiki and/or the volunteers who work on it, and who are actively attempting to destroy the site via intimidation, personal information posting and other such things. And, as my previous post addressed, it needs to be addressed by the Wiki community before it gets worse. These aren't merely people who are critical of the site. -- Daniel Davis 04:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The foundation has lawyers, perhaps they can offer practical, and more proactive, remedies. El_C 05:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

All I think needs to be said is this: I am a critic of Wikipedia and some of the unpleasant powertripping that passes itself off as interaction here, but I've never felt it necessary to join Nazis in slagging off the Jewish editors nor have I engaged in campaigns of hatred against particular editors. As one of those editors though, I'd be willing to give Blu and Selina another chance on my behalf. I am pretty toughskinned and I know I helped wind them up. I believe Blu feels he is working for the best of Wikipedia and I think Selina's more silly than bad. I don't see why though an editor of the standing of SlimVirgin should be expected to AGF of people who have subjected her several times to abuse that she has found very distressing. This is not a question of "silencing critics" but of protecting good contributors from the depradations of not so good contributors.

I think though that at an absolute minimum Selina should remove posts from her trollboard that contain personal information or harassment of editors here. You cannot be a party to that and claim you want to be a member of this community in good faith. Selina should also consider more strictly moderating the abusive comments on her board. It's possible to criticise Wikipedia, and the contributors to it, constructively, without trying to hurt anybody. Grace Note 06:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad these issues are finally coming to a head as I felt the Gator1 incident passed without the outcry it deserved. We have a username policy that recomends people use their real names when editing here and yet on the other hand I know of admins who have changed their usernames to hide their identity and use g-mail as it doesn't give an originating IP address. There are problems here with nuts who resort to serious real life harrassment of people, their families, and places of work when they feel agrieved. Wikipedia is NOT therapy - these people waste everyone's time and I seriously doubt if the knowledge base of the encyclopedia suffers in the long run from their absence. I also believe in free speech but this is not a license to disrupt - with that freedom comes responsibility. If someone hosts a website that allows personal information or harassment to continue they do not deserve a chance here until they have gone away for a few years and grown up a bit even if they clean it up now. To expect established respected editors to happily work side by side with editors who have harassed them is naive and egalitarian to the point of stupidity. Wikipedia does have problems and criticizing anything - especially admin actions - is liable to cause the editor with the grievence more grief even if they have a valid point. That however is life and if the user is not prepared to work within the system to improve it and worse still resorts to real life hassle of the "offending parties" then they should be banned pure and simple. This is Jimbo's "baby" and real people are suffering for working for him for free - he needs to take the lead on this one. If as been claimed above he personally approved the unblocking of these accounts without consulting the victims of their harssment then I shall follow SV and Flo as I have no wish to be part of some social experiment. Sophia 07:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Sophia! AnnH ♫ 09:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Zordrac has claimed that if anyone used his site to stalk and harass anyone that he would walk away. These two incidents are a perfect opportunity to show that he is not a myopic crackpot, do the right thing, and shut the site down -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line: We're building an encyclopedia, not running a rehab clinic. RadioKirk talk to me 13:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Good way to put it -- I never really meant it to be exactly so precise when I coined "Wikipedia is not therapy", but in this case, it's quite accurate. Sophia -- Wikipedia has always been, to some degree, a social experiment; trying to get an encyclopedia "anyone can edit" created by a universe that includes a remarkably high number of nasty people is, whether intended or not, an experiment. Me, I think it's likely to fail because of inescapable teen boy cultural bias; as one departed editor told me, there's a limit to the number of times one can tolerate being called a cunt. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely support Phil's suggestion above. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As do I. FeloniousMonk 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And I. AnnH ♫ 09:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the latest case of real world stalking of a wikipedian. NoSeptember ^talk 13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure blocking everyone who has an account on WR will go over really well. — Nathan ^(talk) 07:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We are building a religion (I mean an encyclopaedia)

It's funny, because the rhyme I remember from school is "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me". So I figure I have an unlimited tolerance for being called a cunt (good thing, really, given my personality).

RadioKirk, When you say "Bottom line: We're building an encyclopedia, not running a rehab clinic", bear in mind that you're speaking for yourself, not for Wikipedia. No-one speaks for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an ecosystem, a memeplex - its own thing, existing as a result of the aggreated and iterated uses people put it to, fair or foul, worthy or pointless, vain or virtuous (to the extent there is ever any consensus about these things). It doesn't have an agenda (not even being an encyclopaedia - when Our Lord Jimbo H. Wales unleashed the idea of an open source, anyone-can-edit platform he ceded any ability to control what Wikipedia is, and what Wikipedia is for, forever). Jimbo can turn off his servers, but even that wouldn't kill it; not now.

The best you can do is figure out a healthy environment for your beloved ecosystem to flourish in ways you (subjectively, acting in your own purely selfish, individual interest) like. Because that's what ever other bugger on this site is doing. So get over the Jesus complex; quit wringing hands about fallen comrades (let's face facts: it's a stunt: SlimVirgin will be back or I'm a banana): Think of yourselves not as owners, or guardians of a moral compass, but gardeners.

Now, would it be premature to volunteer to be Zephram Stark's mentor upon his no doubt imminent welcome back to the fold? :) ElectricRay 21:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the gardener metaphor. Let me ask you this: when you pull the weeds from your garden, do you replant them a week later in the hopes they become beautiful roses, or do you throw them in the mulch pile? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 04:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In my garden I have brambles, down the back near my gooseberries. Most people think they're a pest, but to me they're not: once a year they provide me a good crop of beautiful blackberries. One man's weed is another man's ingredient for blackberry and apple crumble. Your moral absolutism is showing: just because you think it is a weed, should I? Much less, should Wikipedia? ElectricRay 00:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've personally never seen anyone reform online. It's not like real life ... there's no real pressure to reform because there are no "real" implications. The best contrary evidence I can think of is Benon's case ... but he just made a few simple vandalistic edits. Hell, I did that too a loooong time ago before I registered an account. "Wow, you can really edit this?!" But Blu Aardvark is entirely different ... he's not a simple vandal, he's a menace. We're not going to get him to reform online. --Cyde↔Weys 04:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And what do you mean by "reform online"? If it is "conform to my moral view of the world", are you honestly surprised? ElectricRay 00:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

At 124 known sockpuppets (and counting), including one used today, Zephram Stark isn't coming back any time soon. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that running sockpuppets, of itself, was a blockable offence. As far as I can tell, Zephram's aggravated some people (including I think Jayjig and SlimVirgin, no?) on the Terrorism page, and used the expression "fucking jews", once. ElectricRay 00:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's be pragmatic for a second. We're here to build an encyclopedia. And the encyclopedia isn't going to be built very well if abusive users are allowed to continue their harrassment of legitimate editors through various unblocks, "mentorships", and chances at rehabilitation. There's a choice to be made here: what do we value more, attempted rehabilitation of bad editors or good editors? I think the correct solution is quite clear. They can't all coexist. You seem to just think this was a simple act of one user calling another a cunt. Not so! It's much more insidious than that. We have people being stalked in real life and employers being threatened. --Cyde↔Weys 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, --Cyde↔Weys. YOU are here to build an encyclopaedia. How do you know what we're here to to do? ElectricRay 00:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

ElectricRay doesn't appear to know or care about the real life implications of what he cavalierly dismisses. He needs to ask Phil Sandifer if having the police show up at his door was a stunt. Or Katefan0 if having her employer called repeatedly by Brandt was a stunt. MusicalLinguist will likely have an informed opinion on this as well. FeloniousMonk 22:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly didn't know about it - that I grant you. whether i care is a different matter. But our online actions have real world consequences. With power comes responsibilty. Is that really a surprise? In the real world, we modify our actions from our base desires on the basis of how we'll be perceived by our community; should our online activities be any different? ElectricRay 00:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that ElectricRay actually enjoys the presence of destructive users like Stark, and actively promotes their disruption of Wikipedia. His opinions are those of one who empowers and encourages trollery. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, JPG, but vigorously dispute it. You know my views, so I won't trouble the rest of the forum with them here. Suffice to say, you seem to live in a world which values Cliff Richard and the Shadows, and stops there. I stretch to the Sex Pistols, the Who and Led Zeppelin. In the long run, I doubt it will be me who looks like the silly one. ElectricRay 00:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And this is precisely where any dismissal of our intentions as part of some "Jesus complex" is exposed for the hypocrisy it is. The thought that a moral compass is being held by live people who will take extraordinary steps to ruin our real lives over a (real or perceived) slight at Wikipedia supercedes all else, even the encyclopedia itself. This no longer exists in the hypothetical, and no amount of pseudo-philosophy can change that. RadioKirk talk to me 00:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, your moral absolutism is showing. You assume - you make the judgment - that four legs are good, two legs are bad (or better, or whatever). Those with four (or two, or whatever) legs respectfully (or disrespectufully, whatever) disagree. Like it or not, once you hit that point, your metaphysic has no means of resolving the dispute. So don't accuse me of pseudo-philosophy, much less hypocrisy (how, exactly, by the way?). At least I have a resolution: all it is, is that you don't like it. You're welcome to that opinion. ElectricRay 00:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that if someone is banned, they can come back, under a different name and agenda. That's what we expect people to do who have a shift in attitude and decide to be constructive. For example, if the guy/gal who originally created "Willy on Wheels" came back, and the first thing they posted was "I am the original Willy—sorry for all of the people I hurt" they would immediately recieve an indef. But if they quietly come back, and lie through the absence of statement, they recieve a welcome mat and everything. I'm wondering if there's a healthy in-between that can be worked out between those two options, because I never like shutting the door on someone forever, yet I don't like seeing people hurt. However, I don't like the idea of giving someone a chance while they still have connections to the WR and hivemind. There's too much of a chance that they are stormtroopers for these groups that have established themselves as malicious organizations out to destroy our free encyclopedia. I almost get the impression that they abused Linuxbeak's sympathy and compassion for others in order to create an oppourtunity for themselves.-- The ikiroid  00:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall rules that say "links to WR and Hivemind are blockable offences", and whether something is "malicious" is clearly a personal frame of mind. I've been linked to WR - I have posted there. I post other places, too. As Malber and Grace Note can vouch, I think they're idiots at WR, and I consistently said so on the forum. But they certainly don't have a monopoly on that characteristic. ElectricRay 00:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raul654 unblocking Blu Aardvark.

Hooray! --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 00:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Cue controversy all over again. I support unblocking of Blu, though (Selina's a different question). NSLE _(T+C) at 00:40 UTC (2006-05-31)

I think it's unfair to treat Blu Aardvark and Selina the same. Selina has well-established track record as someone who intentionally tries to inflame others; Blu Aardvark had a single bad day. I agree with the others who think he's redeemable. Selina, I'll leave to others to discuss. Raul654 00:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If Raul wants to unblock, let him please discuss it here instead of IRC. -lethe ^{talk +} 00:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

16:45, May 30, 2006 Lethe blocked "Blu Aardvark (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (no opinion about whether block should stay or go, but discuss it on AN/I, not IRC) --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 00:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Notice my post to AN *predates* Lethe's. I have unblocked him again. Raul654 00:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You have wheel-warred. -lethe ^{talk +} 00:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, to wit - I am taking it on as my personal prerogative to unblock this user and give him a second chance. Raul654 00:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Raul654, are you aware of the way that he encourage banned user Andrew Morrow to taunt AnnH. FloNight ^talk 00:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Raul, as you well know the blocking policy requires full discussion, not simply notification, before unblocking. Please discuss this action, and please don't engage in wheel-warring. We should be able to come to a consensus, and if not then this should be appealed to the ArbCom. -Will Beback 00:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed for several days. Most of the opposition I see amounts to (a) lumping Selina and Blu together (which is not fair), and the evidence against Blu himself is, frankly, not all that convincing. Several uses have expressed a desire to see him allowed to edit on a trial basis and no one has presented a single reason why he should not be. Raul654 00:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The original CheckUser evidence against Blu was pretty convincing, and was pretty bad. His indef block was wholly earned. I didn't indef-block him on a lark, Raul. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you blocked him on a lark. His vandalism was definitely block worthy, and the evidence was incontrovertable. I should know, considering I was the one who thwacked him on the next two wikis he attacked (meta and commons). That said, I don't think it's perma-block worthy. Raul654 01:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

None of the discussion involved re-unblocking him, rather the discussion was about the previous unblock. "Personal prerogative" is not a reason, unless you are invokling IAR. -Will Beback 00:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And yet, reblocking him, whichever admin does it, would also be wheel-warring. so can we please stop this mess and all start discussing, civilly? NSLE _(T+C) at 00:54 UTC (2006-05-31)

Raul, stop using IRC to circumvent the community. I realize you're at ease there, but enough is enough. El_C 00:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The community does not unanimously favor keeping in blocked. A number of people have expressed a desire to see him unblocking on a contigency basis (notice - he has apologized on-wiki here) Raul654 01:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Raul, I most certaily have given a specific reason Blu should be blocked. I've asked a serious question about Blu that his supporters have refused to answer. My concerns deserve to be Discussed not Dismissed. -FloNight ^talk 01:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The careful reader will notice that his "apology" doesn't actually promise to stop the off-wiki attacks—merely to "follow Wikipedia's guidelines and policies to the extent that can be reasonably expected of any contributor". Is there some more concrete statement of intent that he's given you? Kirill Lokshin 01:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to your comment, he has clarified his intentions off-wiki Raul654 01:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"I may from time to time make postings that could concievably be read as a personal attack, but please note that I do not intend them as such." Somehow this doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. What next, unban Willy? "I may from time to time make page moves that could concievably be read as mass vandalism, but please note that I do not intend them as such"? Kirill Lokshin 01:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We could not block willy if we wanted to. We don't know his editing style we don't know his home IP with any certainty and he could chnage that in any case.Geni 02:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but any account actually claiming to be Willy would be blocked in short order; in other words, we wouldn't knowingly unblock him. Kirill Lokshin 02:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There are no absolutes when it comes to blocking. Not now but in a few years time I can see that we might tollerate an unblocked WOW. People chnage. People relise thier mistakes.Geni 02:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a user of IRC. I think Raul is doing the right thing here. Mexcellent 00:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Are we going to have to take Blu Aardvark to ArbCom now? We all know damn well that had we gone for ArbCom originally rather than community block he would've gotten at least a year block, but now, only two months later, we have people trying to undo it. They wouldn't be doing that against an ArbCom ban. --Cyde↔Weys 01:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we pre-emptively take MSK to ArbCom as well? And the whole lot of major WR contributors, just in case anyone decides to unban them? Kirill Lokshin 01:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Raul, I most certaily have given a specific reason Blu should be blocked. I've asked a serious question about Blu that his supporters have refused to answer. --FloNight ^talk 01:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I have seen it. If you have proof he has, link it, a difference or, hell, even a WR article.. Regardless, we have a concept of redemption and his trial unblocking serves no direct harm to Wikipedia. Any physical damage that he can do can be reverted, and I can't really say I care for the self-inflicted wounds in a attempt to make a WP:POINT ala MeatBall:Goodbye. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Flo, the only question that I can see you have posted relates to a post[7] where he said that Ammorow should hit recent changes and revert vandalism. I'm not sure how it in any way condones harassment of her, but Blu nonetheless responsed on WR.

...I did not work with FloNight, although (s)he did raise a good question towards me on WP:ANI. I was not intending by that post to encourage Amorrow to continue to harrass MusicalLinguist or other admins. First of all, I had a misconception was that it was amorrow that was being harrassed. And I also have an interest, of a sort, in seeing whether or not admins look at what they are reverting before they revert it. In retrospect, however, I can see that first of all, Amorrow was rightfully banned from Wikipedia, for harrassing and bullying many users. And second of all, my comment was innappropriate to post in that form, and publicly. I do not see a problem with encouraging admins to look before they rollback, but I did not intend to encourage a troll to harras the admins.[8].

Kotepho 02:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say that that post, coming four posts after one in which Amorrow gloats about having FloNight "TRAPPED" and about having her "in the palm of [his] hand" condones Morrow's harassment in general, and not just that towards one editor.

I want to show you another thing. User:FloNight. I have challenged her to declare the number of her Kentucky nursing license. But she will not do it. Why? Why?

And thereby, I have her TRAPPED! I can do with her as I see fit. I can suggest that she is some sort of psychotic, touchy-feely mid-wife, and she cannot respond until she makes the concession of her true identity.

I have her in the palm of my hand, and I chose to close that hand. Hard.[9]

Most normal decent people seeing a post like that would not start egging on the person who had posted it. And the very existence of that post, which Blu Aardvark had certainly seen as it's just four posts above his own post, casts severe doubt over his claim that he "had a misconception was that it was amorrow that was being harrassed" and that he "did not intend to encourage a troll to harras the admins" — a claim which he made after the question of unblocking him had come up, and after this post had been given as an objection. AnnH ♫ 10:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

no one has presented a single reason why he should not be You're right: other than his foul track record (persistent personal attacks, abusive use of sockpuppets, and general conduct indicating that this individual is irreconcilably inimical to Wikipedia's purpose), his proud association with a nest of trolls, his legalisticaly worded non-apology (... I can assume no responsibility for her decision to leave or for Brandt's actions which led to her decision), and your wheel-warring against strong opposition. Nope, other than that, not a single reason. --Calton | Talk 01:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep it civil. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Eat more beets! Mairzy doats and dozey doats and little lambsy divees! I'm sorry, isn't this the "post non sequitors" competition? --Calton | Talk 04:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

How does your personal prerogative trump the significant opposition shown on this page? And how does causing this disruption aid Wikipedia? What's the hurry? You can't wait a few days and let the dust settle before broaching this? Is Blu's ability to edit here worth all the disruption? Rx StrangeLove 01:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion seemed stagnant, and more importantly, didn't have a single edit bit of input from Blu from which to draw conclusions. Raul654 01:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think his input on WR is quite sufficient to draw conclusions from. Kirill Lokshin 01:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean as one of it's more reasonable members?Geni 02:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the others are worse doesn't mean that his own behavior is acceptable; it's merely unacceptable to a lesser degree. Kirill Lokshin 02:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What discussion? I know a lot about his history in the old WR, at least. My input was not requested by you. I could have told you that we should unban Selina ten times over Blu. El_C 01:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't recall her ever manageing to funtion too well on wiki.Geni 02:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Although that was before the Stormfront equatations I saw her making yesterday wrt to SV. If she is rabbit2 on IRC, that is. El_C 01:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Setting aside his 15 minute vandalism spree (for which I myself blocked him for across on three seperate wikis, and for which he has spent two months blocked) - what exactly has he done on WR that merits a permaban? He occasionally snipes at Wikipedia, but he has not participated in any of the 'beyond the pale' actions, insofar as I am aware. His editing before his vandalism spree was pretty good. Why not give him a chance? Raul654 01:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I told you: Nazi hate speech. See your talk page. El_C 01:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reblocked Blu. Cyde's poitn among others is strong and there seems to be no consensus to unblock. JoshuaZ 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I support this reblock of Blu_Aardvark... I will not wheel war about it but if this user or MSK is unblocked and I am the first to notice it, I will reblock, once. I suggest that this matter be taken to ArbComm since community opinion is not unanimous here. ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And I support the reblock as well. Will admins please stop unblocking these people with well-deserved blocks without discussion and consensus here, and not on IRC? User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Non consensus to block. No consensus to unblock. The traditrional default is to unblock.Geni 02:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not if the person is already blocked—no consensus means no change. RadioKirk talk to me 02:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not so. Two flaws. First see what happens at WP:DRV. Second that means that all those boarderline cases become blocks becuase people can block with the knowlage that there will never be a consensus to unblock.Geni 02:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You're presuming contemporaneous blocks, which this follows by no means. These are extroardinary cases, over blocks that, at the time, had wide support; naturally, it would take clear support to override that which was done months ago to the seeming agreement of all involved. RadioKirk talk to me 03:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to use my admin powers again in this case, but I agree with Lar - the community is clearly divided and this is the kind of question ('should blu aardvark be allowed to edit again?') that would be good for the arbcom to settle. Raul654 01:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have put the Blu Aardvark question to the arbcom - Wp:rfar#Blu_Aardvark, which should settle this issue for good. Raul654 02:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And you will, of course, recuse yourself. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Give me some credit - I already have :) [[[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 02:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do you guys have any idea how much joy this debacle will be giving Brandt?!

Look at what he has begun? It's obvious there can be no grey area here, the only solution to my mind is plain as day. Indef block should equal indefinite block! That way when the call is made there can be no wheel warring (formal abcom perhaps only exception). My $0.02. - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

An indefinite block does equal an indefinite block. According to my dictionary, "indefinite" means "without fixed or exact limits". Thus, an indefinite block is not necessarily an infinite block; it is just a block for which no expiry time has been defined in advance. Snottygobble 02:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Linxubeak. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure Brandt is having a good laugh over this. And I don't give a damn. He's entirely irrelevant. He's reduced to putting a list of admins on a page with *gasp* real names and pictures! And then he tries to blackmail people with that info! Oh no! I'd rather do what is right in the long term for Wikipedia than worry about what some insignificant external factor like Brandt thinks. He doesn't run anything here. What we need to work on is a strict No Quarter policy for trolls. We should never be siding with banned trolls over our fellow administrators, and regrettably, that is sort of what this conflict is turning into. --Cyde↔Weys 13:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sick of the drama, sick of the hostility

I'm going to take a short break for a while. Frankly, I'm sick of the drama and hostility that has been flying around here. I'm long overdue for a break anyway, especially after working on Half-Life 2. This isn't a Meatball GoodBye, but instead it's a way for me to recharge my batteries. I'll be back (maybe within a few days). Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the majroity of editors "I respect," to quote yourself, "are indifferent to the [brief departure]". El_C 01:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep it civil. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As civil as his "apology" where that phrase was used to refer to a "situation" involving the departure of six valued admins. But you have supported him from the beginning, so someone who was against his actions telling me to Keep it civil, well, that would look more evenhanded. El_C 01:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

People rarely leave over a single incerdent.Geni 02:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming they do, but decisive ones exist & need to be apporached accordingly. El_C 02:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I really doubt that. Generaly I feel the straw and camels back model works better.Geni 02:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you doubt? A "decisive incident" may well be a "last straw." El_C 03:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, at this stage I think Alex's break is a cop-out. You can't rip the community in half and then complain about the "drama and hostility". You're responsible for this fucking mess, the least you could do is have the decency to stick around until it's cleaned up. Guettarda 01:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep it Civil, for all that is holy! --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Civil? What's incivil? It's a fucking mess. I was using the term to describe the situation, it wasn't aimed at a person. That's well-warranted emphasis (IMO), not incivility. Guettarda 02:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Whereas I only say fuckin when I'm stressed out and end up I'm thinking I'm Ricky (example). El_C 02:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Doing nothing tends to be one of tyhe best ways of cleaning wikipedia events up. Countinueing the fight one it has reached stalemate tends not to work too well.Geni 02:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Guettarda. Linuxbeak brought this all upon us by unilaterally not only unblocking two well-deservedly-blocked vandals, POV editors and WR honchos, but has the nerve to mock those who are primarily effected by it, and then not only refuses to apologize and indicate that he won't do it again, but tries to come across like he is the victim. If Linuxbeak had come here first, and had suggested that he approach Selina and Blu to see if they had reformed, then he would have seen the level of opposition. But not only did he do this without discussion, he approached them first, as if, somehow, he is God and knows best how to "reform" these people. Good riddance, I'm afraid, and Avillia, stop posting your tut tuts, it won't change anything now. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak mocked no one. He refused to accept responsibility for people who departed due to his actions, nothing else. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

False. he invited back their tormentors, he rewarded them for driving Kate out. Not mocked, taunted. Guettarda 03:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, keep it civil - I can understand the unhappiness, but it is not a reason to bare fangs and be incivil. NSLE _(T+C) at 02:01 UTC (2006-05-31)

Yeah, it is actually. Welcome to the real world. •Jim62sch• 09:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Geez, speaking of drama... yes, Linuxbreak made a massive mistake, but anyone who truly believes he intended harm or intended this to blow up in his face—as it should have, I may add—is making a bigger one. RadioKirk talk to me 02:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether he intended to do any harm is irrelevent, that he was utterly incapable of thinking through his potential impact of his actions is. "Your Honour, I was just trying to get home fast, I didn't realize that blowing through a red light at 90 mph would cause the deaths of the people in those 3 cars I hit. Besides, Your Honour, they weren't wearing seatbelts so it's their own fault." Yeah, fuck that. (And don't tell me to be civil. Civility is more than not cursing, it is also taking into consideration the potential harm one's actions can cause to others). Quite frankly, Linux definitely needs to be booted as a bueaucrat, and possibly as an admin. And those defending him can't see the victims for the trainwreck. •Jim62sch• 09:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And the ripples from this just keep getting wider and wider, unfortunately. ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

All I asked of Linuxbeak yesterday was to be more apologetic and to be sensitive of the gravity of what has become of this disastrous situation. I felt the manner in which his templated apology was phrased was a slap in the face of that. El_C 02:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not saying he meant it to go the way it went. But the way he handled the aftermath shows a lack of maturity. I no longer have faith that he has what it takes to be a bureaucrat, that's for sure. Guettarda 02:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrats have only a little more power than admins. The disinction is for the most part unimportant.Geni 02:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's in the arbcom's corner now, so why don't we all step back, take a deep breath, and let them sort it out. In the mean time, there's a very big wiki with much work to do. Raul654 02:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere have I said that he intended this to happen, however, when it all blew up, he has become hostile and tries to claim victimization, when it's the people whose real lives have been disrupted who are the victims. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless I have missed something non of those cases can be traced to Linuxbeak's actions.Geni 02:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I often disagree with Zoe, but in this case I'm in complete agreement. I'm appalled that Linux started this off and then when it got hot dropped it in our laps to wait for it to blow over. This shows a disturbing lack of maturity and judgement in a crat. And we must not forget what has happened to Katefan and others during this trying time. And Geni, given Blu's and Selina's vocal support and cooperation with Brandt and related WR editors, it is very much related. JoshuaZ 02:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak's actions did not cause Brandt's actions. Brandt does not need Blu and Selina. You know this. Brandt is a seperate problem.Geni 02:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a bullshit cop out. Hell, it's bullshit from a logical standpoint. Throwing that pussy Brandt into this does not absolve Linux' actions, nor does it excuse Linux' glaring lack of perspicacity. •Jim62sch• 09:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

He may not need them, but we don't need his cheering section either. By inviting them back, Alex endorsed what was done to Kate. He endorsed what they have said about Sarah. Alex's actions amount to endorsement for that behaviour. Simple enough. Guettarda 03:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The logicaly justifcation for that claim is going to have to be very impressive. From where I am I can't see one. I don't endorse homeopaths. Should I block them from wikipedia?Geni 03:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly. To begin with, you'd have to be unblocking them, and they would have to have been blocked for their venonous homeopathy, and they would have gone from being homeopaths in WP to facilitating homeopaths at WR. After what MSK and BA did over at WR, Alex invited them back, without requiring that they disassociate themselves with what they did and encouraged over at WR. He invited them back, despite their dirty hands, without even asking them to wipe their hands off. So, in effect, he said "your dirty hands are welcome here", and thus, endorsed all that they had done. It would be different if there had been some attempt to rehabilitate themselves. But inviting them back, right after what they had done to Kate, can only be seen as a reward for their misbehaviour - in other words, an endorsement of their actions. Guettarda 03:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"viting them back, right after what they had done to Kate, can only be seen as a reward for their misbehaviour" you lack imagination. In any case you appear to be confusing the actions of Brandt whith those of others.Geni 21:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I lack the imagination to play word games and split hairs. They were complicit in what was done to Kate. Alex invited them back fresh from their victory. You can use your imagination to concoct a fantasy scenario in which they took Alex's action as a rebuke, or whatever else you choose to. But imaginative fantasy is no substitute for reality. Alex may just have been incredibly insensitive, he may just have acted with no thought of the consequences, but his actions still amount to a slap in the face to a whole lot of editors, and it still amounts to a reward for what they helped do to Kate. Now, you might think that's a good idea, that they deserve the reward Alex offered them. But that's no reason to try to argue that it wasn't a reward for them and a slap in the face for their victims. Guettarda 22:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, I saw someone, correctly or otherwise, trying to point out that his reasons, massively misplaced though they were, were valid if not valiant. Your edit summary only a short time ago was "good riddance" and my jaw is still on the floor... RadioKirk talk to me 02:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My reaction was due to Linuxbeak's storming out of here like he is the aggrieved party, after all of the damage that was caused by his unilateral actions. If he had even made any attempt at a meaningful apology, and had left because he was sorry for his actions, I would not have responded as I had. But his repeated protestations of innocence and being the victim are nonsense. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me add one more thing: I was only tangentially attcked by Amorrow in his various incarnations, nowhere near as much as MusicalLinguist, and have not seen the wrath of Brandt as have others. Having a "thick skin" and being able to take criticism is one thing, and you have to put up with a lot of criticism as an admin on Wikipedia (and in emails). That comes with the territory. But to have your personal life affected by these people goes beyond the pale, and then to have somebody come in and say that he's willing to forgive all of that (even though he, personally, was not affected), is a slap in the face to those who were personally, real-life, affected. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Like Joshua, I've often not seen eye to eye with Zoe, but right now I'm leading her cheering section. Guettarda 03:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

See this apparently misplaced edit below. The apology is arguably understated and inadequate (see my post above about real-life consequences), but here's someone who tried to take some initiative and saw seemingly the whole admin community strike back, including several announcing they were leaving. This editor strikes me more as someone putting his tail between his legs and cowering in a corner than someone trying to laugh off the results. Make no mistake, this whole episode was badly handled, but I see it increasing exponentially as a result. We need to stop the bleeding, here. RadioKirk talk to me 02:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not terribly impressed. An apology like that is, at best, a "I'm right, but I regret that my actions hurt you". It shows no willingness to own up to the fact that he has hurt (and the project) far more than anything I have experienced in my almost two years here. Alex has caused us a huge loss. He won't own up to what he did. He doesn't try to fix the problem. He just leaves in a huff, with his feelings hurt, as if he is the victim here. Don't give me that "We need to stop the bleeding" crap. I haven't seen any evidence that Alex is willing to admit the insult of his actions. Have you ever read the filty at WR? Have you read the stuff that's been written about Slim and Ann and all the rest? People who had a part in that shouldn't be here. How much time did this take that could have been spent writing an encyclopaedia? Any clue how much Slim did to solve problems and defuse crap? The calibre of people we have lost, the energy we have spent here, and cost to morale of this is huge. Trite phrases don't do anything. Guettarda 03:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

They do if you see what I see, a user hiding behind both arms, begging, "please don't kill me..." Yes, Alex fucked up, big time, okay? So, what? We crucify him at dawn? You want his head on a plate? Mounted on a plaque over your mantle, perhaps? Talk about unimpressed. I reiterate, we need to stop the bleeding, here. RadioKirk talk to me 03:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If he "fucked up big time" and won't admit the error or the consequences of it then we do need to do something to prevent big time fuckups in the future. that is how the bleeding will stop, not by pretending there isn't a wound. -Will Beback 03:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So, what? We say good riddance to bad rubbish with good intentions? Your solution seems to be to stop the bleeding by making damned sure the corpse bleeds to death. RadioKirk talk to me 03:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's funny...politically, I'm a liberal, but I've never been smitten by the bleeding heart bullshit. Given that Linux' fuck-up was caused by a complete inability to think through his actions (and who knows what the underlying causes are), and given his utter refusal to admit that he has caused significant, if not irreparable harm to Wiki, and more importantly to other people, I don't see how anyone can or should be predisposed let him walk off into the sunset for a bit only to return as if nothing happened. •Jim62sch• 09:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Good intentions don't excuse bad results. The admin who started this, and the entire community, need to figure out where the error was and make sure it isn't repeated. "My solution" is to request those that violated policy to acknowledge that they did so, and to acknowledge the consequences or their actions. The "bleeding" is not limited to one admin. Quite a few editors have been hurt by people involved in this matter - LB is not the chief victim here. -Will Beback 03:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Precisely! He is not—nor should he be the sacrificial lamb. The root cause is what we must target, not the one who caused us to look therefor—but the reaction has been too many calls for Linuxbeak's head as the only remedy for one ones we want so much to save. I venture into the absurd to unmask the absurd: the solution as dictated by the Queen of Hearts is non sequitur and, to segue awkwardly from the looking glass to the 23rd Century, "I don't believe in the no-win scenario." Now, seriously, I have to work out before it gets too late, back later :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sacrificial lamb? Read what's up there - he's playing victim, and other people are making him a hero. Get some perspective^{no, not that kind}. Guettarda 22:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read and reread the whole animal, several times. If I didn't believe in my point, I wouldn't be making it. Thanks for the perspective, though. :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not long ago came a news story about the bank robber who, while fleeing on foot, threw fistfuls of cash at the security guard who stopped to pick them up. Those of you who will now argue analogy v. simile as you complete construction of the gallows for Linuxbeak, I have to work out. Please let me know the official time of death... RadioKirk talk to me 03:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a point to the cute little story? Any relevance? •Jim62sch• 09:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Only what you find therein... :) RadioKirk talk to me 13:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RfAr

Let's keep the pain train going! --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 02:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

On the upside, that page is only 144k compared to the 274k of this one. El_C 02:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Avilla, how exactly is that a useful comment? I am sure there are people now wondering why you continue to make these sorts of comments. I know I am among them. ++Lar: t/c 02:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

He's linking to RFA. Extraneous comment is unoffensive. I found it useful. Ashibaka tock 02:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, I still managed to do the history translations for the Israeli Northern and Southern Commands today. What do(n't) I win? Now to spend more times on this. Or, do something else that has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia. Tough choice! El_C 02:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Avilla, how exactly is that a useful comment? Why, to demonstrate his moral superiority, of course. --Calton | Talk 05:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is a...

Would anyone object to me moving this mess to a subpage or something? It's making AN/I difficult to use and distracting from the usual business of dealing with incidents that require an admin to take care of. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another outsider's view

Greetings, I'm Quadell. I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, but I wanted to come in and give my opinion on this latest mess.

1. Linuxbeak made a mistake in good faith. He didn't violate any specific policy, but he showed poor judgment. I've shown poor judgment in the past too. He also apologized for unblocking without discussing it here first, and he has said he won't do it again. Dumping on Linuxbeak is rude and inappropriate. Every time you act incivilly, the Wikipedia community loses a little respect for you.
2. It's horrible that SlimVirgin and others have (temporarily?) left the project over this. I understand why they did, and I sympathize, and I hope this can all be resolved peaceably. But Linuxbeak should not have to apologize for the fact that these admins have left -- they chose to leave. I'm in a similar situation: I left because of the actions of a long-time admin. And I think that admin should apologize for her actions -- but she should not have to apologize for the fact that I left.
3. I think attempting to unblock someone indefinitely banned should be done no sooner than 3 months after his or her ban, and 6 months is better. Additionally, if that user has recently caused other problems (using sockpuppets to evade the ban, for instance, or posting inflamatory and stalking comments on WR, or permitting the blackmailing of a fine admin) then one should wait 3-6 months before even thinking of unblocking that user.
4. People who post images and addresses of Wikipedians in order to intimidate or blackmail them are scum. I don't think anyone who does this, or admins on a board which does this, should be tolerated here unless they seek to make amends to the people they have harmed. But that's just my opinion.

Anyway, I hope this blows over soon. I miss you all. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this is a BRANCH of the discussion, which has already gone into IncidentArchive104 . -- 71.141.12.88 23:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)