On 19/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
At that time, nobody in the community was willing to unblock. And then somebody, with good reason to unblock, did. It is not necessary to gain community consensus to unblock; the purpose of a block or ban is protection of the encyclopedia from harm, not to express the opinion of the community.
The opinion of the community was that unblocking Brandt was harmful to the project. You seem to misunderstand the community discussion on the matter.
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.
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"