So to be clear, this is not a sanctioned OFFICE/WMF action and an admin in Good Faith can re-block?

Info Control wrote: I would not recommend it. --Jimbo

Info Control wrote: I am answering as a human being who is trying to act thoughtfully and with respect for everyone. I think that a reblock at this point would be ill-advised. No, you are mistaken. I have a traditional role under the long standing community rules of English Wikipedia which does not flow from WP:OFFICE (which became a policy when I delegated some traditional powers to the office) nor from the foundation, but from convention within the community. I am always happy to entertain serious discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of this method, and would support a discussion of how to replace the method. If you are thinking that it would be better, in terms of power for the community, for me to be stripped of this role, I recommend a re-think. One alternative is for the office to be tasked with this stuff. This would result in a much less community-centric way of handling things. I don't recommend it because it is a bad idea. I am bound to the will of the community, as is (for example) the arbitration committee. And notice that the will of the community is not determined by lynch mobs but by our traditions and standards. --Jimbo

Info Control wrote: None. I think he has absolutely no legal case at all here. No. I am happy to disclose, and already did in my unblock notice and emails here. I don't consider making public statements and engaging in a public discussion to be "back room" at all. Brandt and I are talking by email about his status in Wikipedia, both as editor and as biographical subject, and I am attempting to address his various concerns in a way that is both consistent with our policies (NPOV in particular) and respectful of him as a human being. He seems to be discussing in good faith, and I know that I am discussing in good faith. Whatever disagreements he and I, or he and others, may have, it seems fairly clear to me that he wants only to edit the talk page of his own biography (he has said so), so that he can complain there about various problems he perceives (such is his right). He would still like the article about him to be completely deleted, but I think he also understands that complete deletion is not likely to happen. So now I am talking to him about specific steps we might take (he and I but also all of us) to make the article better. I have offered to fly to San Antonio at my personal expense to meet with him and the board of his organization, an offer which he has so far declined, as is his right of course. I do not approve of his past actions, but I do believe that there is a possibility for peace here. I intend to make the best of it, and I hope that everyone will support me to the best extent that they can. (One way to support me, of course, is to talk about why you think I am wrong and what you think I am doing wrong.) --Jimbo

On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: So as an editor Brandt should be afforded minimum protection of Civility clauses and NPA. Here's the first attack that needs to be reviewed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&a… a fellow Wiki editor cites himself, is self-published, violates NOR, and places highly questionable and potentially damaging libelous information in Brandt's bio (the same cite remains in the Public Information Research entry). This is not without Arbitration precedent, other editors have been banned for personal attacks that met WP:V, WP:RS, & WP:CITE policies. The sort of incivility we've seen in this case is beyond the pale, and abusive editors need to be held to account through internal regulation -- the alternative is litigation against the Foundation, or changes in Sec. 230 by Congress which is a *real* possibility.

On 4/19/07, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez(a)gmail.com> wrote: Obviously removing the hivemind page is a good thing, but in the same post he also says he beliefs the Foundation and Jimbo are responsible for admin actions and that he's moving closer to litigation against them. What about "No legal threats"? Mgm