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.