On 4/19/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:52:16 +0200, "Erik Moeller" erik@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