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