Was this an official OFFICE action?
Everyone seems to be up in arms over it--if not OFFICE, do admins have the authority to overrule Jimbo? It seems like he does not have any wide support in this.
Has that ever happened before? What was the outcome?
Info Control wrote:
Was this an official OFFICE action?
Everyone seems to be up in arms over it--if not OFFICE, do admins have the authority to overrule Jimbo? It seems like he does not have any wide support in this.
Has that ever happened before? What was the outcome?
Rock and a hard place - Jimbo did what should have been done ages ago, (unblocking Brandt) but not in direct contradiction to the community's desires (keeping him blocked).
-Jeff
On 19/04/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
Was this an official OFFICE action? Everyone seems to be up in arms over it--if not OFFICE, do admins have the authority to overrule Jimbo? It seems like he does not have any wide support in this. Has that ever happened before? What was the outcome?
He has unblocked and asked people not to block again without an immediate need, as far as I understand it.
- d.
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
Everyone seems to be up in arms over it
Is that so? It seems like a sensible thing to try to deescalate past conflicts using unblocks. We should be taking positive first steps more frequently, rather than expecting the other side to bow to some list of demands for apologies or pledges for better behavior. It is a gesture of our own good faith and our willingness to mend fences.
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?ForgiveAndForget
Jimmy has given three reasons: * he asked nicely * we are talking about a productive way forward in the future * it has been more than a year
These seem like good reasons to me, and I trust his judgment in this matter. I think we should all be willing to try out such experiments more frequently, rather than dividing our world into friends and enemies.
Nobody has, to my knowledge, suggested that Daniel be given control over the biography about him. He can now act within the norms of the community, or violate them. Let him make this decision, and let the community react accordingly.
On 4/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
Everyone seems to be up in arms over it
Is that so?
Yes, it is, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Unbloc...
Just saying. A large consensus of admins community banned him here 72 hours ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_notic...
Thats why I asked, just curious if Jimbo is deeming to override a dozen or more admins there or if this was official OFFICE work.
Info Control wrote:
On 4/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
Everyone seems to be up in arms over it
Is that so?
Yes, it is, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Unbloc...
Just saying. A large consensus of admins community banned him here 72 hours ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_notic...
Thats why I asked, just curious if Jimbo is deeming to override a dozen or more admins there or if this was official OFFICE work.
This is not an official OFFICE action of any kind.
On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
This is not an official OFFICE action of any kind.
Jimmy, you said you're willing to answer any and all questions.
If this isn't an OFFICE action, and it isn't a Foundation action, can you say what it is? Your unblock would have been overturned by now (within minutes, in fact) if you'd been an ordinary admin. If you're acting here as an ordinary admin, and given the amount of opposition there is to what you've done, if your unblock is overturned, will you desysop the admin who overturns it?
Also, can you comment on Durova's post, please? It sums up how a lot of us are feeling. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_notic...
Sarah
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
This is not an official OFFICE action of any kind.
Jimmy, you said you're willing to answer any and all questions.
If this isn't an OFFICE action, and it isn't a Foundation action, can you say what it is?
An action within my personal capacity in my traditional role in the structure of governance of English Wikipedia. Our rules about all these sorts of things are quite clear, and have been the same basically forever.
Your unblock would have been overturned by now (within minutes, in fact) if you'd been an ordinary admin. If you're acting here as an ordinary admin, and given the amount of opposition there is to what you've done, if your unblock is overturned, will you desysop the admin who overturns it?
I am very hopeful that people will listen to the reasons I have given and understand that there is a lot going on there that people may not know about, and that there is absolutely no urgency, so that we do not have to find out what happens in such a case.
To comment on Durova's post: I appreciate these concerns very deeply, and yet, I find myself in a position where difficult competing concerns must be thoughtfully balanced.
If my goal is to stop people from harassing Wikipedians in other venues... and this is my goal... then I have to be thoughtful and flexible in how I go about it. If promises are made, and forward progress is made, then I think it important to respond in good faith.
If it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out, we reblock and that's that.
If it works, then I will have been successful.
I don't know yet which way it will go. But I see no harm in trying.
--Jimbo
On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
If my goal is to stop people from harassing Wikipedians in other venues... and this is my goal... then I have to be thoughtful and flexible in how I go about it. If promises are made, and forward progress is made, then I think it important to respond in good faith.
I'm not sure how you consider it progress. Yes, he took down Hivemind, but at the same time he mentioned legal action again you or the foundation (or both). That's still blockable.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
If my goal is to stop people from harassing Wikipedians in other venues... and this is my goal... then I have to be thoughtful and flexible in how I go about it. If promises are made, and forward progress is made, then I think it important to respond in good faith.
I'm not sure how you consider it progress. Yes, he took down Hivemind, but at the same time he mentioned legal action again you or the foundation (or both). That's still blockable.
Well that was all before I started talking to him. I would not consider actual legal action to be forward progress of course, nor would I consider continued threats of it to be forward progress.
He seems to genuinely want to sort things out. I say, let's try.
--Jimbo
Frankly.... that's good enough for me.
Philippe ----- Original Message ----- From: Jimmy Wales To: English Wikipedia Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:52 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Brandt unblocked by Jimbo - community support?
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
If my goal is to stop people from harassing Wikipedians in other venues... and this is my goal... then I have to be thoughtful and flexible in how I go about it. If promises are made, and forward progress is made, then I think it important to respond in good faith.
I'm not sure how you consider it progress. Yes, he took down Hivemind, but at the same time he mentioned legal action again you or the foundation (or both). That's still blockable.
Well that was all before I started talking to him. I would not consider actual legal action to be forward progress of course, nor would I consider continued threats of it to be forward progress.
He seems to genuinely want to sort things out. I say, let's try.
--Jimbo
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
If my goal is to stop people from harassing Wikipedians in other venues... and this is my goal... then I have to be thoughtful and flexible in how I go about it. If promises are made, and forward progress is made, then I think it important to respond in good faith.
I'm not sure how you consider it progress. Yes, he took down Hivemind, but at the same time he mentioned legal action again you or the foundation (or both). That's still blockable.
Sometimes I think that people make too big an issue of these legal threats. Very few of them are serious at all.
Ec
On 4/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sometimes I think that people make too big an issue of these legal threats. Very few of them are serious at all.
I agree; shallow legal threats are easy to make - much easier to make than to follow through with. My reading of Brandt is that while he'd LIKE to prevail in court, I doubt he has the fiscal or legal means to mount a successful case, and that he'd rather keep the threat hanging over than risk losing.
I suspect he'd rather encourage someone else with deeper pockets to sue us.
As an aside, I do wonder how much libellous vandalism on our site is thanks to people who'd like to see us get in trouble for it?
-Matt
On 4/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Jimmy has given three reasons:
- he asked nicely
- we are talking about a productive way forward in the future
- it has been more than a year
These seem like good reasons to me, and I trust his judgment in this matter. I think we should all be willing to try out such experiments more frequently, rather than dividing our world into friends and enemies.
Also, I'm inclined to agree with you, but my questions are still sort of out there... can the community overrule Jimbo, or is Jimbo pulling an OFFICE to overrule previous decisions by multiple admins here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_notic...
It's really more a question of what is Jimbo's authority in this matter relative to the decisions of other admins.
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
It's really more a question of what is Jimbo's authority in this matter relative to the decisions of other admins.
Well, Jimbo was able to do this because he has been able to give good reasons, and a lot of editors trust his judgement enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
To say that I'm not a fan of Daniel Brandt would be an understatement. However as long as he isn't disrupting Wikipedia there is no reason to re-assert the block.
A purported "community ban" has been asserted by some editors, but community bans only operate insofar as no administrator is prepared to unblock, after contemplating the matter, the banned editor. Jimbo has been in discussion with Daniel Brandt and several other administrators have co-operated on the technical side of unblocking Brandt, which turned out to be quite difficult, so no community ban applies at this time.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
A purported "community ban" has been asserted by some editors, but community bans only operate insofar as no administrator is prepared to unblock, after contemplating the matter, the banned editor. Jimbo has been in discussion with Daniel Brandt and several other administrators have co-operated on the technical side of unblocking Brandt, which turned out to be quite difficult, so no community ban applies at this time.
The cooperation may come not from a desire to see him unblocked (which few people expressed during the discussion), but more to the typical "What Jimbo says, goes" mentality of way too many Wikipedians. I would not use their compliance in helping Jimbo unblock properly as any sort of actual approval of his actions outside of "Jimbo did it, thus it's good."
The community ban you speak of came *before* the massive discussion at the community noticeboard - no one dared unblock him, thus it was a de facto community ban. Once ArbCom declined the matter (still a mistake, IMO), the discussion to unblock him occurred and was soundly and decisively rejected.
I'm willing to give Jimbo the benefit of the doubt that he may not have been aware of the discussion, but if he was and did it anyway, that's really, really troublesome. There's certainly nothing to indicate that he intended to invalidate the consensually-approved ban, and he's shown some approval (perhaps not explicit, I can't be certain at this point) of community-based measures for problem users.
-Jeff
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
The community ban you speak of came *before* the massive discussion at the community noticeboard - no one dared unblock him, thus it was a de facto community ban.
Yes, until Jimbo unblocked there was a community ban. When a community-banned editor is unblocked, with a proper reason, then there is no more community ban. This is why I have said: no community ban applies to Daniel Brandt at this time.
The same kind of limitation applies even to arbitration remedies. There have been several incidents where administrators, or the community as a whole, has declined to enforce remedies ruled by the arbitration committee. Where in some communities this would precipitate a constitutional crisis, on Wikipedia these things tend to be handled with commonsense and understanding, and always with an eye to improving Wikipedia, not harming it.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Yes, until Jimbo unblocked there was a community ban. When a community-banned editor is unblocked, with a proper reason, then there is no more community ban. This is why I have said: no community ban applies to Daniel Brandt at this time.
I don't think you're correct on this. I could very well be wrong, but I don't think you're correct. If you are, this is a very fundamental shift in terms of the ability of the community to create any sort of lasting sanction.
The same kind of limitation applies even to arbitration remedies. There have been several incidents where administrators, or the community as a whole, has declined to enforce remedies ruled by the arbitration committee. Where in some communities this would precipitate a constitutional crisis, on Wikipedia these things tend to be handled with commonsense and understanding, and always with an eye to improving Wikipedia, not harming it.
Apples and oranges. Not enforcing a remedy in certain situations on a judgement call is akin to not pulling over a person who's speeding. This is more akin to someone stealing $1000, being tried, convicted, but then the warden saying "oh well" and opening the cell doors.
Unless Jimbo has pardon authority (which, for all intents and purposes, he may), this remains problematic. Even *with* pardon authority, this remains problematic.
-Jeff
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Yes, until Jimbo unblocked there was a community ban. When a community-banned editor is unblocked, with a proper reason, then there is no more community ban. This is why I have said: no community ban applies to Daniel Brandt at this time.
I don't think you're correct on this. I could very well be wrong, but I don't think you're correct. If you are, this is a very fundamental shift in terms of the ability of the community to create any sort of lasting sanction.
I think it goes without saying that the community has no ability to create an irreversible sanction. People change their minds, consensus shifts, exceptions arise, and exigencies intervene. As a matter of practice, I could easily list umpteen very long-lived community sanctions, and these are not affected one wit for being just as reversible as they were on the day they were first imposed.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I think it goes without saying that the community has no ability to create an irreversible sanction.
No sanction is irreversible. The community can choose to re-address at any point. I'm not sure why you're leading it down that path, especially since the community spoke literally days ago.
-Jeff
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I think it goes without saying that the community has no ability to create an irreversible sanction.
No sanction is irreversible. The community can choose to re-address at any point. I'm not sure why you're leading it down that path, especially since the community spoke literally days ago.
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.
Tony Sidaway 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.
-Jeff
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway 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.
The community isn't competent to make a finding of fact.
On 4/19/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
The community isn't competent to make a finding of fact.
You are?
Jimbo could simply be overruled, couldn't he? Would be interesting to see if anyone is bold or brave enough to. Jimbo is subject to wheel war rules as anyone, I assume?
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo could simply be overruled, couldn't he? Would be interesting to see if anyone is bold or brave enough to. Jimbo is subject to wheel war rules as anyone, I assume?
Actually, based on prior precedent, no. Look at the pedophilia userbox war ArbCom case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_u... Specifically principle 12, finding of fact 9, and remedy 7.1. You do not want to wheel war with Jimbo. Besides, as WP:BAN states, you appeal a community ban to ArbCom, and you appeal an ArbCom decision to Jimbo. There is no mention of a method to appeal a decision by Jimbo.
As far as the unblocking goes, I agree with it until and unless he presents an immediate danger to the project. I see no reason to believe that to be the case at this time.
On 4/19/07, Dycedarg darthvader1219@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, based on prior precedent, no. Look at the pedophilia userbox war ArbCom case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_u... Specifically principle 12, finding of fact 9, and remedy 7.1. You do not want to wheel war with Jimbo. Besides, as WP:BAN states, you appeal a community ban to ArbCom, and you appeal an ArbCom decision to Jimbo. There is no mention of a method to appeal a decision by Jimbo.
Jimbo is an editor like anyone else. First stop in appealing an admin decision is asking the admin, so I'd say appealing a decision by Jimbo is done by talking to Jimbo and convincing him of your standpoint.
Mgm
On 4/19/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Dycedarg darthvader1219@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, based on prior precedent, no. Look at the pedophilia userbox war ArbCom case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_u... Specifically principle 12, finding of fact 9, and remedy 7.1. You do not want to wheel war with Jimbo. Besides, as WP:BAN states, you appeal a community ban to ArbCom, and you appeal an ArbCom decision to Jimbo. There is no mention of a method to appeal a decision by Jimbo.
Jimbo is an editor like anyone else. First stop in appealing an admin decision is asking the admin, so I'd say appealing a decision by Jimbo is done by talking to Jimbo and convincing him of your standpoint.
Mgm _______________________________________________
Yeah, then go to the ArbCom. They agree with you? Jimbo overrules them. They disagree with you? Appeal to Jimbo.
Oh, wait.
Not saying this is bad...
~~~~
gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, then go to the ArbCom. They agree with you? Jimbo overrules them. They disagree with you? Appeal to Jimbo.
Oh, wait.
Not saying this is bad...
Here, let me by decree in this very instant make the following binding pledge upon myself:
In the event that the ArbCom makes a ruling against me, overturning any decision I have made in my traditional capacity within Wikipedia, the ArbCom's decision shall be final.
*This* is a significant change to our policies.
--Jimbo
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
The opinion of the community was that unblocking Brandt was harmful to the project. You seem to misunderstand the community discussion on the matter.
You are?
No. I haven't proposed to make any such finding.
Jimbo could simply be overruled, couldn't he?
Absolutely. This wouldn't move us in the direction of resolving the dispute, but we could do that if we all agreed that he was completely wrong.
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
The community isn't competent to make a finding of fact.
You are?
Jimbo could simply be overruled, couldn't he?
Of course he could, but he said he talked to Brandt, so he clearly knows something the rest of us don't.
On 4/19/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Of course he could, but he said he talked to Brandt, so he clearly knows something the rest of us don't.
Not presented as evidence and he is not the only person to have talked to brandt at some point.
On 4/19/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Of course he could, but he said he talked to Brandt, so he clearly knows something the rest of us don't.
Why would we unblock based on secret information? With this, if Brandt hypothetically did something now, would only Jimbo be allowed to re-block?
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
Why would we unblock based on secret information?
Please see the copy of Brandt's open letter of April 11th, which I posted on the talk page of the Daniel Brandt article.
With this, if Brandt hypothetically did something now, would only Jimbo be allowed to re-block?
Daniel Brandt is an editor on the English Wikipedia. He is subject to the policies of the wiki. Any administrator may block another editor for a suitable period if this is necessary for the smooth running of Wikipedia.
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Of course he could, but he said he talked to Brandt, so he clearly knows something the rest of us don't.
Why would we unblock based on secret information? With this, if Brandt hypothetically did something now, would only Jimbo be allowed to re-block?
Of course not. If Brandt were to violate Jimbo's trust by breaking any rules right now any serious admin would block him on the spot and Jimbo would agree with that action. Breaking a rule that's blockworthy gets you blocked regardless of any other ongoing issues provided someone is willing to issue that block.
Mgm
Info Control wrote:
On 4/19/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Of course he could, but he said he talked to Brandt, so he clearly knows something the rest of us don't.
Why would we unblock based on secret information? With this, if Brandt hypothetically did something now, would only Jimbo be allowed to re-block?
If Brandt engages in any sort of behavior which would normally get someone blocked, then by all means, reblock him of course. He is under no special protection.
However, and this is a personal recommendation, please do not be too trigger-happy, as you are likely to cause the community a lot of grief when we have an opportunity here to resolve this issue amicably and put it behind us.
As for me, I don't believe in holding grudges and having endless fights. When peace is possible, it is worth going for.
--Jimbo
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.
This is just the concern I have. Thank you for your time. -Cascadia
"Jimmy Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote in message news:4627E024.9080604@wikia.com...
Info Control wrote:
On 4/19/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Of course he could, but he said he talked to Brandt, so he clearly knows something the rest of us don't.
Why would we unblock based on secret information? With this, if Brandt hypothetically did something now, would only Jimbo be allowed to re-block?
If Brandt engages in any sort of behavior which would normally get someone blocked, then by all means, reblock him of course. He is under no special protection.
However, and this is a personal recommendation, please do not be too trigger-happy, as you are likely to cause the community a lot of grief when we have an opportunity here to resolve this issue amicably and put it behind us.
As for me, I don't believe in holding grudges and having endless fights. When peace is possible, it is worth going for.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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
On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
If Brandt engages in any sort of behavior which would normally get someone blocked, then by all means, reblock him of course. He is under no special protection.
The problem is that he *is* engaging in behavior that would normally get someone blocked. He's posting libel off-wiki, he's trying to out people, he's trying to find out where people live. He hasn't stopped it; he hasn't taken those posts down. That would normally get him blocked. Yet you've said that reblocking him would be a bad idea, without saying what will happen to any admin who does it.
However, and this is a personal recommendation, please do not be too trigger-happy, as you are likely to cause the community a lot of grief when we have an opportunity here to resolve this issue amicably and put it behind us.
As for me, I don't believe in holding grudges and having endless fights. When peace is possible, it is worth going for.
It's not a question of holding grudges. My guess is that if he were to take all that material down, apologize, and promise not to restore it, the community would forgive him, perhaps not immediately but soon enough.
But you wouldn't want to see Amorrow or Sollog (or anyone) unblocked while they still had personal material about you and your family on their websites, no matter what promises they made. You wouldn't call opposition to those unblocks "holding grudges," just basic common sense.
Sarah
Slim Virgin wrote:
The problem is that he *is* engaging in behavior that would normally get someone blocked. He's posting libel off-wiki, he's trying to out people, he's trying to find out where people live. He hasn't stopped it; he hasn't taken those posts down. That would normally get him blocked. Yet you've said that reblocking him would be a bad idea, without saying what will happen to any admin who does it.
Well, give me a few days to talk to him about all these issues and hopefully they can be resolved. In the meantime, the unblock is a show of good faith on my part.
It's not a question of holding grudges. My guess is that if he were to take all that material down, apologize, and promise not to restore it, the community would forgive him, perhaps not immediately but soon enough.
I will ask him if he is willing to do that. I suspect he would want some apologies too.
But you wouldn't want to see Amorrow or Sollog (or anyone) unblocked while they still had personal material about you and your family on their websites, no matter what promises they made. You wouldn't call opposition to those unblocks "holding grudges," just basic common sense.
Depending on the circumstances, I would support unblocking anyone.
--Jimbo
On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
The problem is that he *is* engaging in behavior that would normally get someone blocked. He's posting libel off-wiki, he's trying to out people, he's trying to find out where people live. He hasn't stopped it; he hasn't taken those posts down. That would normally get him blocked. Yet you've said that reblocking him would be a bad idea, without saying what will happen to any admin who does it.
Well, give me a few days to talk to him about all these issues and hopefully they can be resolved. In the meantime, the unblock is a show of good faith on my part.
It's not a question of holding grudges. My guess is that if he were to take all that material down, apologize, and promise not to restore it, the community would forgive him, perhaps not immediately but soon enough.
I will ask him if he is willing to do that. I suspect he would want some apologies too.
Yes, if he decided to remove all that material and apologizes for it, I'd be happy to forgive him. I'd need to check the article to see if anything is wrong with it and if apologies on our part or warranted.
Mgm
On Apr 19, 2007, at 7:15 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Yes, if he decided to remove all that material and apologizes for it, I'd be happy to forgive him.
Speak for yourself.
Daniel Brandt conspired with other Wikipedia Review users to subject me to police harassment on spurious grounds with the explicit goal, in Brandt's own words, of forcing me to leave my PhD program.
It is unacceptable that he be considered a member of this community, and I am disgusted at Jimbo for being willing to overlook the active attempts he has made to cause real world harm to members of this community.
-Phil
On 4/19/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 19, 2007, at 7:15 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Yes, if he decided to remove all that material and apologizes for it, I'd be happy to forgive him.
Speak for yourself.
Daniel Brandt conspired with other Wikipedia Review users to subject me to police harassment on spurious grounds with the explicit goal, in Brandt's own words, of forcing me to leave my PhD program.
It is unacceptable that he be considered a member of this community, and I am disgusted at Jimbo for being willing to overlook the active attempts he has made to cause real world harm to members of this community.
Hypothetically, if it meant that Brandt will no longer subject other Wikipedians to something similar to what you went through, would it be acceptable?
on 4/20/07 10:04 AM, Deathphoenix at originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
Daniel Brandt conspired with other Wikipedia Review users to subject
me to police harassment on spurious grounds with the explicit goal, in Brandt's own words, of forcing me to leave my PhD program.
Phil,
This is a sidebar - but a sincere one. I certainly hope he did not succeed.
Marc
Nonsense. Someone saw your graphic story, posted a comment regarding it on Wikipedia Review, and sometime later a person who has not been identified came forward and called it to the attention of the police. (It was a rather alarming story, from what I have heard, although I never personally read it).
Daniel Brandt was not at all involved with such "conspiracy" to my knowledge. I don't think it was ever ascertained as to who made the call, but presumably it was either Amorrow or Lir (I personally think it was the former).
Second, since when has being questioned by police been defined as "police harassment"? You have a right to answer or not to answer them as you see fit.
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Apr 19, 2007, at 7:15 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Yes, if he decided to remove all that material and apologizes for it, I'd be happy to forgive him.
Speak for yourself.
Daniel Brandt conspired with other Wikipedia Review users to subject me to police harassment on spurious grounds with the explicit goal, in Brandt's own words, of forcing me to leave my PhD program.
It is unacceptable that he be considered a member of this community, and I am disgusted at Jimbo for being willing to overlook the active attempts he has made to cause real world harm to members of this community.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Phil Sandifer wrote:
It is unacceptable that he be considered a member of this community, and I am disgusted at Jimbo for being willing to overlook the active attempts he has made to cause real world harm to members of this community.
Merely having an unblocked account on Wikipedia does not make someone a member of the community. I consider a huge swath of bad editors to be not members of the community. Just having an account on Wikipedia does not make one a Wikipedian.
And I am NOT willing to overlook any bad behavior. I am looking for a solution which will prevent that bad behavior in the future, and help to patch things up from the past.
--Jimbo
On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Depending on the circumstances, I would support unblocking anyone.
I think this is consistent with your earlier actions and policies, and Arbcom and senior editor actions, etc.
I can't off the top of my head recall anything from anyone which was stated as being or intended to be truly permanent and irrevocable block or ban.
George Herbert wrote:
On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Depending on the circumstances, I would support unblocking anyone.
I think this is consistent with your earlier actions and policies, and Arbcom and senior editor actions, etc.
I can't off the top of my head recall anything from anyone which was stated as being or intended to be truly permanent and irrevocable block or ban.
*nod* Though it is worth noting that in many cases, the circumstances under which I would support an unblock would be pretty unlikely and unusual.
--Jimbo
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
The community isn't competent to make a finding of fact.
Well, that's a fascinating response.
It's Wikipedia policy. If it weren't, writing an encyclopedia would be a doddle. Just reach a consensus on content every time. No need for those pesky "neutral point of view" and "verifiability" policies.
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"
Andrew Gray wrote:
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.
He went to ArbCOm to get unblocked. ArbCom declined the case, some citing that it was a de facto community ban since no one had the stones to reverse it. Someone brought it up at the Community Noticeboard, where the block was overwhelmingly endorsed. I was in the minority on that. Thus, the block was endorsed as a legitimate community ban.
Now that doesn't matter.
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"
I'm fine with him being unblocked on a practical standpoint, just *not this way*. It's a betrayal of trust of the community due to Brandt's alleged off-wiki activity and doesn't reflect overwhelming community consensus on the matter, a consensus that was reached days ago, not months or even years. These things matter, and, frankly, if it were someone who isn't Jimbo who did the unblocking, they'd likely have been trotted in front of ArbCom by now.
-Jeff
On 19/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I'm fine with him being unblocked on a practical standpoint, just *not this way*. It's a betrayal of trust of the community due to Brandt's alleged off-wiki activity and doesn't reflect overwhelming community consensus on the matter, a consensus that was reached days ago, not months or even years. These things matter, and, frankly, if it were someone who isn't Jimbo who did the unblocking, they'd likely have been trotted in front of ArbCom by now.
I suspect the ArbCom would have said "so what's the damage done by the unblocked account?"
So far would it happen to be ... zero?
- d.
On 4/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect the ArbCom would have said "so what's the damage done by the unblocked account?"
So far would it happen to be ... zero?
Unblocking a WOW account would do zero damage in the short term. I think too soon to judge that one. Although a lot past experience suggests there will be damage caused.
The account holder is unquestionably in violation of [[WP:LEGAL]] which admins as empowered to block for.
Additionally the account holder could be blocked under:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLOCK#Personal_attacks_that_place_users_in_d...
Rather ironically he could be blocked under BLP (his repeated insertion of the claim to be an accountability activist) however even I would view that as rule layering taken far too far.
On 19/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
He went to ArbCOm to get unblocked. ArbCom declined the case, some citing that it was a de facto community ban since no one had the stones to reverse it. Someone brought it up at the Community Noticeboard, where the block was overwhelmingly endorsed. I was in the minority on that. Thus, the block was endorsed as a legitimate community ban.
Now that doesn't matter.
But the point people have been trying to make here is that that's not how a community ban works. A community ban isn't "a block by decision of the community"; it's "a block the community doesn't oppose". Originally, a community ban was just a user who was so annoying no-one could care enough to unblock them; later, it became a bit more common for people to say "look, I'm thinking of blocking X indefinitely as a community ban - will anyone object to this?" just to test the waters. But the idea remained -
----
There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves indefinitely blocked by an administrator . . . and no one is willing to unblock them. A user banned under these circumstances is considered to have been "banned by the Wikipedia community."
----
quoth the blocking policy. It's pretty implicit from that that if someone is willing to unblock you, you're no longer community-banned.
or even years. These things matter, and, frankly, if it were someone who isn't Jimbo who did the unblocking, they'd likely have been trotted in front of ArbCom by now.
And I have confidence that the arbcom would take one look at that trotting and say "no, this is silly, he may have done a very idiotic thing but he did it legitimately". We've had this before with particularly contentious users, unblocked after private mentoring attempts to resolve their particular objectionableness... they don't usually work well, but we do try, and I don't recall any lynchings of would-be mentors before.
On 19/04/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
We've had this before with particularly contentious users, unblocked after private mentoring attempts to resolve their particular objectionableness... they don't usually work well, but we do try, and I don't recall any lynchings of would-be mentors before.
Indeed. And remember: the arbcom has long upheld that no-one is considered irredeemable, even in past cases where it's obvious they're about 99.5% irredeemable. It may end badly, but it is unlikely to end in wiki-threatening disaster. If someone is willing to unblock and to work with the person, there's no problem. In this case, I know Jimbo is keeping as close an eye as anyone on what actually happens.
- d.
Andrew Gray wrote:
But the point people have been trying to make here is that that's not how a community ban works. A community ban isn't "a block by decision of the community"; it's "a block the community doesn't oppose".
Then, I'll say it again - the Community Noticeboard loses significant power if this is a persistent belief. The rules have changed, one could say.
-Jeff
On 19/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
But the point people have been trying to make here is that that's not how a community ban works. A community ban isn't "a block by decision of the community"; it's "a block the community doesn't oppose".
Then, I'll say it again - the Community Noticeboard loses significant power if this is a persistent belief. The rules have changed, one could say.
When did it get that power in the first place? Most people aren't aware it exists; it's been there all of two months, and in its earliest incarnation called for the discussion of things "that the community should be aware of, such as proposed community bans". I am not sure when it quietly appropriated to itself the authority to *declare* a community ban, or insist on enforcing lapsed ones...
On 4/20/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
But the point people have been trying to make here is that that's not how a community ban works. A community ban isn't "a block by decision of the community"; it's "a block the community doesn't oppose".
Then, I'll say it again - the Community Noticeboard loses significant power if this is a persistent belief. The rules have changed, one could say.
When did it get that power in the first place? Most people aren't aware it exists; it's been there all of two months, and in its earliest incarnation called for the discussion of things "that the community should be aware of, such as proposed community bans". I am not sure when it quietly appropriated to itself the authority to *declare* a community ban, or insist on enforcing lapsed ones...
Yeah, TBH, I hadn't heard of the community noticeboard till now. Then again, I don't deal with this sort of problem anymore, so I'm probably atypical of Wikipedians.
Johnleemk
On 19/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
But the point people have been trying to make here is that that's not how a community ban works. A community ban isn't "a block by decision of the community"; it's "a block the community doesn't oppose".
Then, I'll say it again - the Community Noticeboard loses significant power if this is a persistent belief. The rules have changed, one could say.
Then it was set up under a terrible misconception. There's no procedure to legally ordain a lynch mob.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Then, I'll say it again - the Community Noticeboard loses significant power if this is a persistent belief. The rules have changed, one could say.
Then it was set up under a terrible misconception. There's no procedure to legally ordain a lynch mob.
This may be very true.
-Jeff
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
But the point people have been trying to make here is that that's not how a community ban works. A community ban isn't "a block by decision of the community"; it's "a block the community doesn't oppose".
Then, I'll say it again - the Community Noticeboard loses significant power if this is a persistent belief.
Then we can all heave a sigh of relief.
The rules have changed, one could say.
No. A community ban has always been as Andrew describes it.
On 4/19/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
No. A community ban has always been as Andrew describes it.
Not exactly they evolved out of pure IAR blocks. At that point the there was no real mechanism for removing them. Largely they were used to cover gaps in the rules that have latter been codified. As they became more common the rational of if no admin would revert it is is probably good appeared. Later as more edge cases appeared it become common to do a brief poll of whoever showed up.
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
But the point people have been trying to make here is that that's not how a community ban works. A community ban isn't "a block by decision of the community"; it's "a block the community doesn't oppose".
Then, I'll say it again - the Community Noticeboard loses significant power if this is a persistent belief. The rules have changed, one could say.
The rules have stayed the same, actually.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
But the point people have been trying to make here is that that's not how a community ban works. A community ban isn't "a block by decision of the community"; it's "a block the community doesn't oppose".
Then, I'll say it again - the Community Noticeboard loses significant power if this is a persistent belief. The rules have changed, one could say.
The rules have stayed the same, actually.
I'm not sure I'm buying it, and I'm almost positive the rest of the community who's completely thrown by this decision is even worse off.
-Jeff
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
But the point people have been trying to make here is that that's not how a community ban works. A community ban isn't "a block by decision of the community"; it's "a block the community doesn't oppose".
Then, I'll say it again - the Community Noticeboard loses significant power if this is a persistent belief. The rules have changed, one could say.
-Jeff
The CN is still there so people can check if someone opposes a block. The
board isn't supposed to have power. If an editor is willing to unblock someone, they're technically not community banned anymore, but they'd better be willing to take the heat if the action results in problems on the unblocked user's part.
Mgm
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
He went to ArbCOm to get unblocked. ArbCom declined the case, some citing that it was a de facto community ban since no one had the stones to reverse it. Someone brought it up at the Community Noticeboard, where the block was overwhelmingly endorsed. I was in the minority on that. Thus, the block was endorsed as a legitimate community ban.
Now that doesn't matter.
Not so much that it doesn't matter, more that the perception that nobody has the balls to unblock Daniel Brandt has been graphically refuted.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Not so much that it doesn't matter, more that the perception that nobody has the balls to unblock Daniel Brandt has been graphically refuted.
When Jimbo has to be held accountable for his actions the way you or I do, then I'll agree with you. As it stands, he's above whatever gets tossed around. It doesn't take balls to act if there's no apparent way to be reprimanded in the off chance you're wrong.
-Jeff
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Not so much that it doesn't matter, more that the perception that nobody has the balls to unblock Daniel Brandt has been graphically refuted.
When Jimbo has to be held accountable for his actions the way you or I do, then I'll agree with you. As it stands, he's above whatever gets tossed around. It doesn't take balls to act if there's no apparent way to be reprimanded in the off chance you're wrong.
Jimbo's position *is* special. He can't move like this often. He can't easily be challenged successfully because it's so useful to have a wild card. It's a kind of lubricant.
I suspect that I like having this wild card for precisely the reason you don't. You think the best thing for Wikipedia would be a bureaucracy with iron rules that are fairly rigidly enforced. It would be fair to say that I don't think this would be good for Wikipedia at all. We need mavericks.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Not so much that it doesn't matter, more that the perception that nobody has the balls to unblock Daniel Brandt has been graphically refuted.
When Jimbo has to be held accountable for his actions the way you or I do, then I'll agree with you. As it stands, he's above whatever gets tossed around. It doesn't take balls to act if there's no apparent way to be reprimanded in the off chance you're wrong.
Jimbo's position *is* special. He can't move like this often. He can't easily be challenged successfully because it's so useful to have a wild card. It's a kind of lubricant.
I suspect that I like having this wild card for precisely the reason you don't. You think the best thing for Wikipedia would be a bureaucracy with iron rules that are fairly rigidly enforced. It would be fair to say that I don't think this would be good for Wikipedia at all. We need mavericks.
And I think we need mavericks who try to move forward with calm reason and friendliness, who try to seek the best within everyone, and who try to work things out without a lot of fighting.
I think just about any prominent admin could have unblocked Brandt by giving the reasons I have given, and they probably would have gotten some heat about it. The real test is: how to respond to that heat? As for me, I am happy to take the heat, and intend to simply answer questions as best I can.
If I do that, then my role here is useful. If I do not do that, then I deserve to be removed from it.
If it is indeed harmful, Brandt will make that clear and he'll be reblocked.
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway 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.
-Jeff
-- If you can read this, I'm not at home.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Unless Jimbo has pardon authority (which, for all intents and purposes, he may), this remains problematic. Even *with* pardon authority, this remains problematic.
When I created the arbitration committee and delegated some powers to it, the most important "safety valve" which was retained (and quite properly, in order to sooth some concerns about whether a rogue ArbCom could do great damage to the openness of Wikipedia) was the right to pardon.
In this case, the ArbCom declined to act, quite properly within their right. I have not overruled the ArbCom in any way by taking up the appeal myself and considering it. This is the normal way things work.
Why? Why do we do things this way rather than following some mechanistic legal system? Because we know each other, we trust each other, we share responsibilities, and we proceed forward thoughtfully and carefully to try to make sure that in all cases, justice is done.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Why? Why do we do things this way rather than following some mechanistic legal system? Because we know each other, we trust each other, we share responsibilities, and we proceed forward thoughtfully and carefully to try to make sure that in all cases, justice is done.
This is why I asked earlier if you were aware of the community discussions on the matter. Because there is a significant number of Wikipedians who don't know and don't trust Brandt, and don't feel that this is a just activity. There's a not-insignificant number of people who don't share that sort of opinion about many members of the power structure here, and when the power structure, as it were, completely ignores community consensus (one of those ultra-important things), it causes a loss of faith in the entire process.
When I can agree with unblocking Brandt, but still feel disheartened by the whole affair, there's something wrong.
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
This is why I asked earlier if you were aware of the community discussions on the matter. Because there is a significant number of Wikipedians who don't know and don't trust Brandt, and don't feel that this is a just activity. There's a not-insignificant number of people who don't share that sort of opinion about many members of the power structure here, and when the power structure, as it were, completely ignores community consensus (one of those ultra-important things), it causes a loss of faith in the entire process.
I disagree that there is any community consensus here.
When I can agree with unblocking Brandt, but still feel disheartened by the whole affair, there's something wrong.
Perhaps in your understanding of what is going on? Are there factual questions you would like to ask me?
--Jimbo
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:24:21 +0200, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I disagree that there is any community consensus here.
Really? I would say that there is pretty strong consensus that off-wiki harassment and deliberate outing of editors' real identities, both of which are activities in which Brandt freely admits he has engaged, are utterly unacceptable.
Did you not know about these activities, or the editors and admins who have abandoned their accounts and/or the project as a direct result of Brandt's activities?
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:24:21 +0200, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I disagree that there is any community consensus here.
Really? I would say that there is pretty strong consensus that off-wiki harassment and deliberate outing of editors' real identities, both of which are activities in which Brandt freely admits he has engaged, are utterly unacceptable.
Yes, of course there is a consensus about THAT. I didn't mean that we have no consensus about ANYTHING.
Did you not know about these activities, or the editors and admins who have abandoned their accounts and/or the project as a direct result of Brandt's activities?
Yes, of course I know about it.
What I meant is that there does not seem to be any consensus about the idea of unblocking him now as a part of a negotiation process to get all those bad things stopped. Some have been critical, and have given good reasons. Others have been supportive, and have given good reasons.
The question of whether a particular good faith gesture in an effort to create an atmosphere of good will which may lead to a more favorable outcome for both sides will actually WORK or not is a valid question, of course.
--Jimbo
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:05:56 +0200, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The question of whether a particular good faith gesture in an effort to create an atmosphere of good will which may lead to a more favorable outcome for both sides will actually WORK or not is a valid question, of course.
There is also the issue of whether, in reaching out to Brandt, you will simultaneously issue a gut-wrenching blow to people who have been savagely attacked, often for no real reason. And I don't think that's overdramatising the issue.
There is a big difference between, say, removing his user page and associated debates and coming to an agreement to leave each other alone, and letting him back in. Most of his edits leading up to the block appear in any case to be either promoting Wikipedia Review or editing information about himself. I may have been overly superficial in this review, but I didn't see much evidence that he is actually here to improve the encyclopaedia. What is his goal, actually? To continue the long-lost argument over his article? Or to actually, you know, add good information to the encyclopaedia?
Truthfully, if he never came to our attention ever again because he spent the rest of his days quietly Wikignoming away, the issue would eventually be forgotten. Do you see that happening? Or are we simply giving him more rope and standing ready to catch the chair when he kicks it away? Will he take some more of our known good editors with him? He's taken a few out already, as you know.
Or: Why on earth would we do this? What's in it for us, as a project? I guess that's the bottom line, and I'm still not seeing a positive in the cost-benefit balance.
Sorry to be negative, but I have to put myself firmly in the utterly bemused camp here.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Or: Why on earth would we do this? What's in it for us, as a project? I guess that's the bottom line, and I'm still not seeing a positive in the cost-benefit balance.
To put it another way, is this a clever approach to resolving a seemingly-intractable situation, or simply appeasement, and how would one tell the difference ahead of time?
Going by what I've read on Wikipedia Review, I bet this is going to look like appeasement pretty quickly. But in either case, it will be a useful data point for the future.
Stan
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:56:15 -0700, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
To put it another way, is this a clever approach to resolving a seemingly-intractable situation, or simply appeasement, and how would one tell the difference ahead of time?
Well put.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:05:56 +0200, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The question of whether a particular good faith gesture in an effort to create an atmosphere of good will which may lead to a more favorable outcome for both sides will actually WORK or not is a valid question, of course.
There is also the issue of whether, in reaching out to Brandt, you will simultaneously issue a gut-wrenching blow to people who have been savagely attacked, often for no real reason. And I don't think that's overdramatising the issue.
Well, I hope not. I suspect that most of the people involved will understand that a good faith negotiation to try to get certain behaviors stopped is worthwhile.
I may have been overly superficial in this review, but I didn't see much evidence that he is actually here to improve the encyclopaedia. What is his goal, actually? To continue the long-lost argument over his article? Or to actually, you know, add good information to the encyclopaedia?
He asked me to unblock him for the specific reason that he would like to have the opportunity to post on the talk page of the article about him. I think that he is being honest about that, and that this is all he really wants to do.
Or: Why on earth would we do this? What's in it for us, as a project? I guess that's the bottom line, and I'm still not seeing a positive in the cost-benefit balance.
Imagine if we can come to some measure of peace with Brandt, so that he stops doing things that (quite rightly) irritate the community. Imagine if we end up with a short and properly NPOV article about him, and he is satisfied with it (though still perhaps wishing we would delete the whole thing, of course). Suppose the worst of the off-wiki behaviors stop, and suppose he just comes to post comments and complaints whenever the article about him appears biased.
Then I think we can all stop worrying about it.
Is that a possible outcome here? I think so. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. I tried.
--Jimbo
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:09:56 +1000, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Imagine if we can come to some measure of peace with Brandt, so that he stops doing things that (quite rightly) irritate the community. Imagine if we end up with a short and properly NPOV article about him, and he is satisfied with it (though still perhaps wishing we would delete the whole thing, of course). Suppose the worst of the off-wiki behaviors stop, and suppose he just comes to post comments and complaints whenever the article about him appears biased.
OK, I know events have moved on and this is all moot now, but - wow. You are right, in the end, sometimes we have to try the brave thing. But some with emotional investment will not (did not) like it at all. Yes, I'm sure you understand how they feel. I'm not convinced you got that across. You are a gifted communicator, I will assume this was one of those instances where events outstripped the pace of measured communication and calm discourse.
Guy (JzG)
On 24/04/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:09:56 +1000, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Imagine if we can come to some measure of peace with Brandt, so that he stops doing things that (quite rightly) irritate the community. Imagine if we end up with a short and properly NPOV article about him, and he is satisfied with it (though still perhaps wishing we would delete the whole thing, of course). Suppose the worst of the off-wiki behaviors stop, and suppose he just comes to post comments and complaints whenever the article about him appears biased.
OK, I know events have moved on and this is all moot now, but - wow. You are right, in the end, sometimes we have to try the brave thing. But some with emotional investment will not (did not) like it at all. Yes, I'm sure you understand how they feel. I'm not convinced you got that across. You are a gifted communicator, I will assume this was one of those instances where events outstripped the pace of measured communication and calm discourse.
Trying to redeem the irredeemable is always worth a go. I remember Linuxbeak's valiant attempts at this a while ago. He fell flat on his face on them, but it was still completely worth it for him to have tried.
- d.
On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Why do we do things this way rather than following some mechanistic legal system? Because we know each other, we trust each other, we share responsibilities, and we proceed forward thoughtfully and carefully to try to make sure that in all cases, justice is done.
--Jimbo
Yah sure. When are you going to hear my case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requ...
Couldn't agree with this more. We aren't here to rigidly apply rules, we do whats best for the community, for each other. And healing is always good for the soul. Bringing Brandt into the community gives us a very sharp mind to help us, and maybe he can learn something about trusting others from us as well.
-Brock
On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Unless Jimbo has pardon authority (which, for all intents and purposes,
he
may), this remains problematic. Even *with* pardon authority, this remains problematic.
When I created the arbitration committee and delegated some powers to it, the most important "safety valve" which was retained (and quite properly, in order to sooth some concerns about whether a rogue ArbCom could do great damage to the openness of Wikipedia) was the right to pardon.
In this case, the ArbCom declined to act, quite properly within their right. I have not overruled the ArbCom in any way by taking up the appeal myself and considering it. This is the normal way things work.
Why? Why do we do things this way rather than following some mechanistic legal system? Because we know each other, we trust each other, we share responsibilities, and we proceed forward thoughtfully and carefully to try to make sure that in all cases, justice is done.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Brock Weller wrote:
Couldn't agree with this more. We aren't here to rigidly apply rules, we do whats best for the community, for each other. And healing is always good for the soul. Bringing Brandt into the community gives us a very sharp mind to help us, and maybe he can learn something about trusting others from us as well.
Well, it is pretty clear that he doesn't want to join the community. And it is pretty clear that he is going to remain a sharp critic of Wikipedia. But hopefully we can elevate the level of that debate by practicing the very old wikipedia values of love and thoughtfulness.
--Jimbo
On 4/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Jimmy has given three reasons:
- he asked nicely
- we are talking about a productive way forward in the future
- it has been more than a year
These seem like good reasons to me, and I trust his judgment in this matter. I think we should all be willing to try out such experiments more frequently, rather than dividing our world into friends and enemies.
The problem with it, Erik, is that it sends a message that users may harass and stalk other users, post libel about them, out them, contact their employers, contact their boyfriends, and generally try to make life miserable for them, so long as they do it off-wiki.
Is that your position?
Sarah
On 4/19/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with it, Erik, is that it sends a message that users may harass and stalk other users, post libel about them, out them, contact their employers, contact their boyfriends, and generally try to make life miserable for them, so long as they do it off-wiki.
Both of the "hive mind" pages are down now. Perhaps that is insufficient from your perspective, but it is a first step, and IMHO sufficient to reopen the dialog in public.
If Daniel has indeed posted libel about you, have you considered taking legal action against him?
On 4/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
If Daniel has indeed posted libel about you, have you considered taking legal action against him?
Wouldn't that require disclosing who you (really) are, to pursue action?
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
If Daniel has indeed posted libel about you, have you considered taking legal action against him?
Wouldn't that require disclosing who you (really) are, to pursue action?
Yes, of course. You already know who he is. If he has maligned you as a person then he must already have made a connection between someone who has made edits on Wikipedia and a real person (you). So it isn't going to be a huge surprise to anyone if you identify yourself as the person damaged by Brandt's actions in linking you (correctly or incorrectly) to edits made on Wikipedia.
On 4/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/19/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with it, Erik, is that it sends a message that users may harass and stalk other users, post libel about them, out them, contact their employers, contact their boyfriends, and generally try to make life miserable for them, so long as they do it off-wiki.
Both of the "hive mind" pages are down now. Perhaps that is insufficient from your perspective, but it is a first step, and IMHO sufficient to reopen the dialog in public.
The hive mind pages outed people, but didn't libel them. The libel, the insults, and the harassment are still on Wikipedia Review and other bulletin boards. The stalking has occurred by e-mail, with him trying to find out who I am, contacting people he thinks I used to date and work with. This is recent by the way, not ancient history; he was last in touch with someone he thought I used to work for in January this year.
Bear in mind that the harassment started only because I began a stub on him in October 2005 (a short, neutral one) that I deleted when he asked me to. I've not blocked him or had any further run-ins with him. (Not that it would make his behavior okay if I had.)
I've been told that, even after his unblock, he has continued to post about how best to uncover my home address (though I've not seen this myself; people are e-mailing me about it).
If Daniel has indeed posted libel about you, have you considered taking legal action against him?
I'll answer this off-list.
Can you answer my previous question, Erik, because it's one that a lot of people are now worried about. Is it your view that all that matters is what users do on-wiki, and that what they do to other users off-wiki is of no consequence?
Sarah
On 4/19/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/19/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with it, Erik, is that it sends a message that users may harass and stalk other users, post libel about them, out them, contact their employers, contact their boyfriends, and generally try to make life miserable for them, so long as they do it off-wiki.
Erik, I think this post sums up what a lot of people are feeling. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_notic...
On 4/19/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Erik, I think this post sums up what a lot of people are feeling. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_notic...
I appreciate that. As we've already discussed, this appears to be due to a very serious misperception of the status of voluntary edits on Wikipedia.
On 4/19/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Erik, I think this post sums up what a lot of people are feeling. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_notic...
I appreciate that. As we've already discussed, this appears to be due to a very serious misperception of the status of voluntary edits on Wikipedia.
It's worth clearing up once and for all, and letting new editors and admins know what the situation is. Lots of people believe that if they're threatened with violence or a lawsuit while carrying out work on behalf of Wikipedia, they can look to the Foundation for help. I think it's important finally to clarify how the Foundation sees itself in law, how it see its admins and editors, what Jimbo's position is, and when something is an OFFICE action, and when not. And when it's not, what the status of it is.
Wikipedia's too large and prominent now for the loose understandings that it's relied on in the past, understandings that not everyone shares or even knows about.
Sarah
To SlimVirgin, an office action is an office action when it says so in edit or log summary or when, like Danny, edits are done with a special separate account.
Mgm
On 4/19/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Lots of people believe that if they're threatened with violence or a lawsuit while carrying out work on behalf of Wikipedia, they can look to the Foundation for help.
Until today it had never occurred to me that some people might believe this. It's my failing that I didn't realise this, because it *does* make sense of a lot of people's actions on Wikipedia, which have seemed somewhat irresponsible to me--not least in their apparently wilful exposure of Wikimedia to potential third party liability.
In the circumstances, I can only underline my earlier agreement that the mediawiki boilerplate should be changed to underline the fact that Wikimedia does not indemnify, condone, excuse, support, instigate or stand on the sidelines cheerleading the actions or statements of editors. That this seems obvious to me isn't enough. It needs to be stated clearly.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 4/19/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Lots of people believe that if they're threatened with violence or a lawsuit while carrying out work on behalf of Wikipedia, they can look to the Foundation for help.
Until today it had never occurred to me that some people might believe this. It's my failing that I didn't realise this, because it *does* make sense of a lot of people's actions on Wikipedia, which have seemed somewhat irresponsible to me--not least in their apparently wilful exposure of Wikimedia to potential third party liability.
I think the additional boilerplate makes sense too. It won't scare away every libeler, but it will clarify the situation for some who think that others will bear the consequences of bad actions.
Stan
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 4/19/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Erik, I think this post sums up what a lot of people are feeling. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_notic...
I appreciate that. As we've already discussed, this appears to be due to a very serious misperception of the status of voluntary edits on Wikipedia.
It's worth clearing up once and for all, and letting new editors and admins know what the situation is. Lots of people believe that if they're threatened with violence or a lawsuit while carrying out work on behalf of Wikipedia, they can look to the Foundation for help. I think it's important finally to clarify how the Foundation sees itself in law, how it see its admins and editors, what Jimbo's position is, and when something is an OFFICE action, and when not. And when it's not, what the status of it is.
Wikipedia's too large and prominent now for the loose understandings that it's relied on in the past, understandings that not everyone shares or even knows about.
Sarah
Hi Sarah
I have answered to some points here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthere#WP:OFFICE_and_Brandt
Bottom line, we need a new General Counsel.
Anthere
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 4/19/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Erik, I think this post sums up what a lot of people are feeling. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_notic...
I appreciate that. As we've already discussed, this appears to be due to a very serious misperception of the status of voluntary edits on Wikipedia.
It's worth clearing up once and for all, and letting new editors and admins know what the situation is. Lots of people believe that if they're threatened with violence or a lawsuit while carrying out work on behalf of Wikipedia, they can look to the Foundation for help. I think it's important finally to clarify how the Foundation sees itself in law, how it see its admins and editors, what Jimbo's position is, and when something is an OFFICE action, and when not. And when it's not, what the status of it is.
Wikipedia's too large and prominent now for the loose understandings that it's relied on in the past, understandings that not everyone shares or even knows about.
I don't think that anyone has threatened me with violence or a lawsuit in connection with Wikipedia activities, though if it were to happen I would first pause to assess the credibility of the threat. In the case of a threat I would be very much inclined to tell the person, "Put up or shut up, but do it in my jurisdiction."
I don't think that it's up to WMF to protect admins from themselves. WMF has no control over the way that admins do their work; they are not employees. Just because they have gone through the gauntlet of earning adminship does not magically turn them into representatives of the Foundation.
Ec
On Apr 19, 2007, at 10:28 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I don't think that anyone has threatened me with violence or a lawsuit in connection with Wikipedia activities, though if it were to happen I would first pause to assess the credibility of the threat. In the case of a threat I would be very much inclined to tell the person, "Put up or shut up, but do it in my jurisdiction."
I have. They put up. I would not wish it on another contributor.
I don't think that it's up to WMF to protect admins from themselves. WMF has no control over the way that admins do their work; they are not employees. Just because they have gone through the gauntlet of earning adminship does not magically turn them into representatives of the Foundation.
It is, I think, a moral responsibility for the project to do what it can to support its volunteers. When a volunteer is in danger because of their actions for Wikipedia - particularly because of their good actions for Wikipedia - we owe it to them to do what we can.
-Phil
On 4/19/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Can you answer my previous question, Erik, because it's one that a lot of people are now worried about. Is it your view that all that matters is what users do on-wiki, and that what they do to other users off-wiki is of no consequence?
Brandt's main complaint is about the existence and content of his biography. As far as I understand, he only intends to comment on the talk page of that biography to ask for corrections he considers important. Granting him that limited "right to response" seems to be something we ought to consider completely irrespective of all other ongoing disputes.
Would you be less concerned about the unblock if we effectively limited his editing privileges to Talk:Daniel Brandt?
On 4/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/19/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Can you answer my previous question, Erik, because it's one that a lot of people are now worried about. Is it your view that all that matters is what users do on-wiki, and that what they do to other users off-wiki is of no consequence?
Brandt's main complaint is about the existence and content of his biography. As far as I understand, he only intends to comment on the talk page of that biography to ask for corrections he considers important. Granting him that limited "right to response" seems to be something we ought to consider completely irrespective of all other ongoing disputes.
Would you be less concerned about the unblock if we effectively limited his editing privileges to Talk:Daniel Brandt?
Yes, Erik, that would help a lot.
Sarah
You have repeatably made this assertion, but haven't actually cited any locations where this "libel" has been made. The Wikipedia Review forum appears to be willing to work with you, unless I am reading things wrong.
To accuse Brandt of libeling you without any evidence to the fact... isn't that in and of itself libelous?
Just curious.
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 4/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
The problem with it, Erik, is that it sends a message that users may harass and stalk other users, post libel about them, out them, contact their employers, contact their boyfriends, and generally try to make life miserable for them, so long as they do it off-wiki.
Is that your position?
Sarah
Slim Virgin wrote:
The problem with it, Erik, is that it sends a message that users may harass and stalk other users, post libel about them, out them, contact their employers, contact their boyfriends, and generally try to make life miserable for them, so long as they do it off-wiki.
Is that your position?
It is not my position, in case you wanted to ask me as well as Erik.
It is my position, though, that a symbolic act of good faith during a promising negotiation to get that sort of behavior STOPPED, can be worthwhile to try.
--Jimbo
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:14:17 +0200, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It is my position, though, that a symbolic act of good faith during a promising negotiation to get that sort of behavior STOPPED, can be worthwhile to try.
Jimmy, you have an urgent job of communication to do. To a lot of the community this looks like you giving greater weight to the feelings of a persistent thorn in Wikipedia's flesh, than to long-standing and highly valued members of the community against whom Brandt has launched personal attacks, and deliberate, calculated, real-life harassment. I am not sure I understand your thinking here, and I am absolutely sure that the overwhelming reaction of most people is "WTF???"
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Jimmy, you have an urgent job of communication to do.
Well, this is by my count my 18th email to this mailing list in the last hour and 15 minutes or so. I don't know how much more urgent of a job I can do. :)
To a lot of the community this looks like you giving greater weight to the feelings of a persistent thorn in Wikipedia's flesh, than to long-standing and highly valued members of the community against whom Brandt has launched personal attacks, and deliberate, calculated, real-life harassment. I am not sure I understand your thinking here, and I am absolutely sure that the overwhelming reaction of most people is "WTF???"
I am trying to resolve the issue in a positive way. Obviously I very much more strongly value those members of the community than Brandt. And I hope that my active explanations and addressing of concerns will help people to understand what is going on here and why.
--Jimbo
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:09:45 +0200, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Well, this is by my count my 18th email to this mailing list in the last hour and 15 minutes or so. I don't know how much more urgent of a job I can do. :)
Yebbut, most of the community ain't here. That's the point, I guess.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:14:17 +0200, Jimmy Wales wrote:
It is my position, though, that a symbolic act of good faith during a promising negotiation to get that sort of behavior STOPPED, can be worthwhile to try.
Jimmy, you have an urgent job of communication to do. To a lot of the community this looks like you giving greater weight to the feelings of a persistent thorn in Wikipedia's flesh, than to long-standing and highly valued members of the community against whom Brandt has launched personal attacks, and deliberate, calculated, real-life harassment. I am not sure I understand your thinking here, and I am absolutely sure that the overwhelming reaction of most people is "WTF???"
I think that his thinking here is in the proper spirit of forgiveness. Your argument that more weight should be given to valued community members than to a "persistent thorn" sounds like the kind of argument that the Athenians might have used against Socrates.
Whatever the complaints about Brandt, is there not some point where the dispute is just not worth disputing anymore. Jimbo has sought a way to put this dispute behind us. It is clear that a handfult of people do not agree with him. How would they do it better? Waiting for the other side to blink in abject apology is a power game that solves nothing.
Ec
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
The problem with it, Erik, is that it sends a message that users may harass and stalk other users, post libel about them, out them, contact their employers, contact their boyfriends, and generally try to make life miserable for them, so long as they do it off-wiki.
Is that your position?
It is not my position, in case you wanted to ask me as well as Erik.
It is my position, though, that a symbolic act of good faith during a promising negotiation to get that sort of behavior STOPPED, can be worthwhile to try.
This is important. The opportunity to redeem oneself should always be there, and this cannot happen as long as the "victims" continue to dwell upon past injuries. I'm sure that if Brandt or anyone else in his position restarts a lot of nonsense, the community will not be shy about dealing with it.
Ec
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
This is important. The opportunity to redeem oneself should always be there, and this cannot happen as long as the "victims" continue to dwell upon past injuries. I'm sure that if Brandt or anyone else in his position restarts a lot of nonsense, the community will not be shy about dealing with it.
If the private information is still on Brandt's site, isn't it a ptesent injury, not a past injury?
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
This is important. The opportunity to redeem oneself should always be there, and this cannot happen as long as the "victims" continue to dwell upon past injuries. I'm sure that if Brandt or anyone else in his position restarts a lot of nonsense, the community will not be shy about dealing with it.
If the private information is still on Brandt's site, isn't it a ptesent injury, not a past injury?
That's his own site. If you feel that his mention of you there is illegal take it up with the proper authorities. Wikipedia is not a forum for settling outside disputes.
Ec
This is a wonderful post, and Erik is right on all points.
I am happy to answer any and all questions.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
Everyone seems to be up in arms over it
Is that so? It seems like a sensible thing to try to deescalate past conflicts using unblocks. We should be taking positive first steps more frequently, rather than expecting the other side to bow to some list of demands for apologies or pledges for better behavior. It is a gesture of our own good faith and our willingness to mend fences.
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?ForgiveAndForget
Jimmy has given three reasons:
- he asked nicely
- we are talking about a productive way forward in the future
- it has been more than a year
These seem like good reasons to me, and I trust his judgment in this matter. I think we should all be willing to try out such experiments more frequently, rather than dividing our world into friends and enemies.
Nobody has, to my knowledge, suggested that Daniel be given control over the biography about him. He can now act within the norms of the community, or violate them. Let him make this decision, and let the community react accordingly.