charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com wrote:
"Jeff Raymond" wrote
The cooperation may come not from a desire to see
him unblocked (which
few
people expressed during the discussion), but more to the typical "What
Jimbo says, goes" mentality of way too many Wikipedians.
Well, in this case, Jimbo would be much better informed on Brandt than
almost all admins.
I'm not sure that's true, honestly. I have no indications of it, although
I hope so.
I'm
willing to give Jimbo the benefit of the doubt that he may not have
been aware of the discussion, but if he was and did it anyway, that's
really, really troublesome. There's certainly nothing to indicate that
he
intended to invalidate the consensually-approved ban, and he's shown
some
approval (perhaps not explicit, I can't be certain at this point) of
community-based measures for problem users.
Don't follow. A community ban holds only when it is effectively unanimous,
not when it has a consensus behind it. That's a huge practical difference.
Then I think a lot of people are confused by the community ban
proceedings, and that will effectively make the entire idea behind it
toothless.
-Jeff
--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.