Cascadia wrote:
Jimmy, I normally only watch the discussions here on the mailing list, but I have to ask this one question:
What sort of responsibility you, or the WMF, are willing to accept when an editor, in this case Daniel Brandt, who has a history of harrassment, even taking things off-wiki; returns to that pattern despite the community asking that the editor not be unblocked. I do realize that a block has never, and would never, prevent Mr. Brandt from taking such actions, but this is a case where the Founder of Wikipedia has made an administrative action to allow Mr. Brandt back into editing Wikipedia.
If Mr. Brandt behaves badly in the future (and I don't just mean criticizing Wikipedia, of course, but actual bad behavior of the sorts that would ordinarily get someone properly blocked from editing Wikipedia), then he will surely be reblocked with my full support.
And, as you rightly point out, this will not affect his ability to do whatever he pleases elsewhere.
But I read the situation differently. I read the situation as someone who has been angry with Wikipedia for a long time, who felt that the biography on him was biased in some unpleasant ways, and who reacted badly. But who now is interested in just putting this whole incident behind. So he made an appeal on very specific grounds, and we are currently talking about it.
All I am saying, is give peace a chance.
--Jimbo