Info Control wrote: This is not an official OFFICE action of any kind.

Slim Virgin wrote: 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. 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

MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote: 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

MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote: 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, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: 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_noti… It's really more a question of what is Jimbo's authority in this matter relative to the decisions of other admins.

Tony Sidaway wrote: 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 -- If you can read this, I'm not at home.

Tony Sidaway wrote: 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. 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 -- If you can read this, I'm not at home.

Tony Sidaway wrote: 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 -- If you can read this, I'm not at home.

Tony Sidaway 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. -Jeff -- If you can read this, I'm not at home.

On 4/19/07, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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, Dycedarg <darthvader1219(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

gjzilla(a)gmail.com wrote: 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(a)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.

On 4/19/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

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(a)wikia.com> wrote in message news:4627E024.9080604@wikia.com...

On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> 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. 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

On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: 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 4/19/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hypothetically, if it meant that Brandt will no longer subject other Wikipedians to something similar to what you went through, would it be acceptable?

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 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: 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 william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Tony Sidaway wrote: Well, that's a fascinating response. -Jeff -- If you can read this, I'm not at home.

On 19/04/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> 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. 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

On 19/04/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.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? - d.

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

Andrew Gray 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. -Jeff -- If you can read this, I'm not at home.

On 4/20/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

David Gerard wrote: This may be very true. -Jeff -- If you can read this, I'm not at home.

On 4/19/07, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. -- geni

Jimmy Wales wrote: 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 -- If you can read this, I'm not at home.

On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> 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.

On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote: 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.

If it is indeed harmful, Brandt will make that clear and he'll be reblocked. On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

Jimmy Wales 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. When I can agree with unblocking Brandt, but still feel disheartened by the whole affair, there's something wrong. -Jeff

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:24:21 +0200, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: 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) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:05:56 +0200, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: 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) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:56:15 -0700, Stan Shebs <stanshebs(a)earthlink.net> wrote: Well put. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:09:56 +1000, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: 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) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On 4/19/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: Yah sure. When are you going to hear my case? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Req…

Brock Weller wrote: 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, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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? -- Peace & Love, Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees. "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

On 4/19/07, Info Control <infodmz(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)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_noti…

On 4/19/07, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

On 4/19/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.

Slim Virgin wrote: 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

On Apr 19, 2007, at 10:28 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: I have. They put up. I would not wish it on another contributor. 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, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: Yes, Erik, that would help a lot. Sarah

Slim Virgin wrote: 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

Guy Chapman aka JzG 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. :) 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

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote: 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

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Ray Saintonge wrote: If the private information is still on Brandt's site, isn't it a ptesent injury, not a past injury?

This is a wonderful post, and Erik is right on all points. I am happy to answer any and all questions. Erik Moeller wrote: