On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:52:16 +0200, "Erik
Moeller"
<erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Daniel Brandt (and any other person in a similar
situation) ought to
be permitted to comment directly on the talk page of his biography as
long as he does not become extremely disruptive, irrespective of
off-wiki conduct. He does not, from his comments I've seen, appear to
have any interest in Wikipedia beyond that, anyway. So, his editing
privileges can be limited in this way -- enforced by another block if
he violates this basic rule. (The overall block would only be lifted
if there is a more substantial improvement in the relationship, mutual
apologies, and so forth.)
This makes much better sense to me.
Yes, this means he will keep us busy with comments
and objections to
the way the bio is phrased. But I think that's only fair; we put it
there, we refuse to remove it on his request, we should at least give
him a very simple & public method of pointing out what he considers to
be bias or errors.
A simple way, yes. Email. To OTRS. But if we absolutely insist on
allowing him to comment on the talk page, with the proviso that he
stays there, does not harass, and does not engage in agitation to have
the thing removed (which is doomed to fail and thus inherently
disruptive) then I guess this might be a way forward.
I would like to add that he shouldn't link to any attack sites, per
the ArbCom ruling. I wouldn't want to see his posts be used as
platforms to increase the readership of his off-wiki attacks on
editors.
Sarah