On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote: We don't have to settle for this kind of seat-of-pants stuff. The nearest thing to Jimbo's recent actions that I can think of is Linuxbeak's initiative in unblocking Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle under mentorship in May, 2006. There was an RFC, but what of it? A Request for comment is a reasonable forum for resolving disagreements. The RFC is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Linuxbeak You may note that the two most strongly endorsed outside views are as follows (severely redacted for space) Simetrical (+23 endorsements) "Linuxbeak said himself that his failure to consult the community was an oversight. This implies that, retrospectively, he feels he was in error by unblocking the users without discussion. They were quickly reblocked, and Linuxbeak has made no attempt to reunblock them. It was a small error on his part, easily remedied and nothing to hold against him....In summary, Linuxbeak has acted admirably at every step of this dispute, despite being blamed for things he had nothing to do with, and despite constant general attacks on him. He did not in any way act wrongly, and my respect for him has if anything increased by reason of his behavior during this incident." Kim Bruning (+24 endorsements) "...The current outcome is not optimal, but Linuxbeak himself played a positive role. Linuxbeak is to be commended for his initiative and demonstrated diplomatic skill. In future it might be important to coordinate diplomatic efforts better within the community, so that people like Linuxbeak will be more effective...." Overall I think this was something that enhanced Linubeak's reputation, and reflected great credit on the community that supported him.