[WikiEN-l] Brandt unblocked by Jimbo - community support?

[Jeff Raymond]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

> "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.

But this is where the "Jimbo Getting Involved" issue clouds things.
Prior to your unblock, very few people were even considering such a
thought.  Now that you've done it, people are supporting it.

Why?  You're Jimbo, and what Jimbo says, we should unthinkingly do.  I
don't think you understand the weight your opinion pulls, and how
amazingly frustrating it is to get any traction in a situation you've
inserted yourself into.

Undoubtedly, there are very few editors who would not say there was a
community consensus to keep Brandt blocked prior to your unblocking.
Undoubtedly now, there's absolutely no way we'll ever know the true
feelings of the community because too many people assume that you're not
to be disagreed with.

I sometimes wish you could get into a dispute with yourself just to see
what it's like.  I also wish you were able to take a month, open a
secondaryaccount in secret, and actually understand what it's like to be
an editor in 2007.  There are so many issues that I'm not sure you're
aware of, especially when you make moves like this.

>> 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.

Anyone who bothers to read the message board in question knows he's been
gearing up for litigation against the Foundation.  He knows full well
the statute of limitations are coming in a matter of weeks, and he has a
lawyer retained.  Within one week of his posting that, he suddenly gets
unblocked by the one guy who arguably stands to lose the most from it?
I'm not *saying* there was more than one gunman, but...

So it's very hard for me, and even moreso for the people who are
being/have been hassled by Brandt, to buy into the idea that you two are
having some sort of dialogue that doesn't involve the Foundation not
getting sued and Brandt getting unblocked.  It's too coincedental, and
it's not necessarily that we can't assume good faith in Jimmy Wales
(although it may be the case in individual circumstances), but that we
can't assume good faith in Daniel Brandt given the circumstances.

And people are afraid to ask these questions of you - I'm not.  But when
I get multiple messages thanking me for putting these issues out there,
I think there's evidence that you're not aware of the strain you're
continuing to put on the community with this.  People don't think
they're getting the full story, and this is undoubtedly bad.

-Jeff


-- 
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly
	because you kind of get the impression she
	sang every song either about or to her cats.
	They seem to be the driving force in most of
	her creative process."     - Chuck Klosterman