On 19/04/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)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"
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk