Jimmy Wales wrote:
I disagree that there is any community consensus here.
Wow. Okay. what do you call the massive discussion, then?
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?
Well, how did this work out? The conspiracy theorist in me is running rampant right now, I assume there's too many legal issues for you to actually give us a straight answer on that. At least tell us that, and I think some people will at least understand that. Or maybe just myself.
And the fact that I'm seeing the privacy accounts getting blocked right now because people are afraid of how Brandt will react to the discussion only fuels this.
-Jeff
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I disagree that there is any community consensus here.
Wow. Okay. what do you call the massive discussion, then?
Seriously, Jeff, can you look at the conflicting opinions being expressed by Wikipedians who hold one another in mutual regard, and proclaim a consensus on this issue?
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I disagree that there is any community consensus here.
Wow. Okay. what do you call the massive discussion, then?
Seriously, Jeff, can you look at the conflicting opinions being expressed by Wikipedians who hold one another in mutual regard, and proclaim a consensus on this issue?
Seriously, Tony, can you consider an opinion that isn't your own in the same range as one that is? You're about a day late on this coment - if you read the overwhelming consensus on the CN (one that you attempted to hide, if I recall correctly), you'll see where I'm coming from.
-Jeff
On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I disagree that there is any community consensus here.
Wow. Okay. what do you call the massive discussion, then?
Seriously, Jeff, can you look at the conflicting opinions being expressed by Wikipedians who hold one another in mutual regard, and proclaim a consensus on this issue?
Very few people have posted here or on Wikipedia in support of the unblock. There seems to be an overwhelming consensus against it -- including Brandt himself!
On 4/20/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I disagree that there is any community consensus here.
Wow. Okay. what do you call the massive discussion, then?
Seriously, Jeff, can you look at the conflicting opinions being expressed by Wikipedians who hold one another in mutual regard, and proclaim a consensus on this issue?
Very few people have posted here or on Wikipedia in support of the unblock. There seems to be an overwhelming consensus against it -- including Brandt himself!
I am in support of Jimmy's positional authority to "pardon" someone, and the concept that barring something truly grossly out of bounds like real-world physical assault over a Wikipedia issue, we should keep in mind that we (Jimmy, Arbcom, or admins) may want to rehabilitate and allow a return to the project from just about any abuser.
Would I have unblocked Brandt? No. Would I have advised Jimmy to unblock? No. Am I OK with it happening? As long as he doesn't use the account to mount an abuse campaign within the Wiki, sure.
"Slim Virgin" wrote:
On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I disagree that there is any community consensus here.
Wow. Okay. what do you call the massive discussion, then?
Seriously, Jeff, can you look at the conflicting opinions being expressed by Wikipedians who hold one another in mutual regard, and proclaim a consensus on this issue?
Very few people have posted here or on Wikipedia in support of the unblock. There seems to be an overwhelming consensus against it -- including Brandt himself!
Actually, I thought the responses on this list have been pretty mixed. And I suspect a very large portion of the EN Wikipedia community are as yet completely unaware of the discussions. I was completely unaware of the noticeboard until it came up in this list the other day. I rather suspect that, like AN and DRV and AfD, the editors with an on-going interest in such areas are a relatively small subset of the Wikipedia universe. I'd be very hesitant about drawing any conclusions about a broad consensus based on the discussion on such a page.
I think most editors are quite content to edit quietly and have little inclination to enter into such a tempestuous thicket of ill-will as this topic represents. Of course we can't make any assumptions about what their opinions might be on the topic, either way, but when making claims about overwhelming consensus, it makes a difference whether it is a consensus of participants in a self-selected echo box or an actual cross-section of the community.
FWIW, I completely support Jimmy's unblock for the reasons that he has expressed. Of course, personally, I'd have no problem with deleting Brandt's bio either. He is completely unnotable, IMO. But if there is going to be an article about him, he should be able to comment about it on-wiki (provided his contributions going forward are done civilly and without being unreasonable in pushing a baseless POV).
Bkonrad
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I disagree that there is any community consensus here.
Wow. Okay. what do you call the massive discussion, then?
"Massive discussion" does not equal "community consensus". Lots of people seem to be saying "Yeah, Jimbo, try that, hopefully it will work." Other people are saying "Uh, Jimbo, that's a dumb idea, it will never work." Still others are posting confused messages about Wikipedia governance.
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?
Well, how did this work out? The conspiracy theorist in me is running rampant right now, I assume there's too many legal issues for you to actually give us a straight answer on that. At least tell us that, and I think some people will at least understand that. Or maybe just myself.
How did this work out? I don't understand the question. So far, as much as I know (but I haven't checked the wiki in a few hours) there seems to be nothing much going on. I am still talking to Brandt, and as far as I can tell, that seems to be going reasonably well.
I am completely unaware of any legal issues which would prevent me from telling you everything that has been going on, which is why I have told you everything that has been going on.
--Jimbo