I'd like to start by apologizing to Sarah for twice referring to her as 'Rachel' up-thread. I only just realized that. I have no excuse for this carelessness. I'm sorry, Sarah.
- - -
Sarah wrote:
This discussion is getting a little circular, stale, and off-topic. Anyone who wants me to unblock Amalekite should e-mail me. So far I've had e-mails supportive of the block, but not one from anyone thinking it should be overturned. If people e-mail me directly with their views, I'll have a better idea of community consensus, and then I can take it into account.
I have already petitioned you directly, in words as clear as I can manage, to lift your block on User:Amalekite. I'm doing so again now.
I do not see any advantage in taking the discussion to private mail. On the contrary I think it is most natural to keep this kind of decision making and the associated arguments in the open. For one thing it gives us recorded precedents to base future decisions on.
If the mailing list has grown tired of the topic we can relocate to a talk page of your choice - though I would personally prefer to finish the discussion here since it started here.
My arguments against keeping User:Amalekite blocked can be found in a number of my previous posts to this list. Instead of going through them all again I'd like to emphasize the following meta-argument.
It has become clear that there is no consensus for the ban of User:Amalekite. At least five people (Michael, Jack, Matt, Lisa and myself) have expressed their opposition to it in no uncertain terms. Several other people have expressed some reservations or ambivalence towards the action. In my opinion summary banning of an account is only appropriate in the case of undisputed vandals and trolls. If it turns out that a summarily banned user is not, in fact, an undisputed vandal/troll the ban on him or her should be lifted.
Regards, Haukur