"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.
The community ban you speak of came *before* the massive discussion at the community noticeboard - no one dared unblock him, thus it was a de facto community ban. Once ArbCom declined the matter (still a mistake, IMO), the discussion to unblock him occurred and was soundly and decisively rejected.
Jimbo could (if so inclined) have referred the case directly to the ArbCom, and in that case we would naturally have taken it. We (undoubtedly) would not have passed a motion to unblock.
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.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam