Andrew Gray wrote:
Was he blocked "pursuant to the community deciding to unblock him". If he was, this might be a valid complaint - but we don't require a community vote every time we block or unblock someone, and I fail to realise why this case is magically different just because we don't like the guy.
He went to ArbCOm to get unblocked. ArbCom declined the case, some citing that it was a de facto community ban since no one had the stones to reverse it. Someone brought it up at the Community Noticeboard, where the block was overwhelmingly endorsed. I was in the minority on that. Thus, the block was endorsed as a legitimate community ban.
Now that doesn't matter.
I don't like Daniel Brandt; he annoys me on many levels. But I don't think letting him have a user account with which he can edit the wiki, with a dozen people staring at every move he makes, is in any way "harmful to the project", and I suspect many people agree with me; the comments of those who feel strongly over our latest cause celebre should never be assumed to be completely representative "of the community"
I'm fine with him being unblocked on a practical standpoint, just *not this way*. It's a betrayal of trust of the community due to Brandt's alleged off-wiki activity and doesn't reflect overwhelming community consensus on the matter, a consensus that was reached days ago, not months or even years. These things matter, and, frankly, if it were someone who isn't Jimbo who did the unblocking, they'd likely have been trotted in front of ArbCom by now.
-Jeff