On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Isn't this list for such discussions? I was under the impression that
you were asking for a clarification or specification of policy?
I was and am. I was just re-reverted for removing the Brandt comments on his
talk page, and RV'd it back out again. I don't want to get into an edit war
on this, but I don't understand why out-of-policy permission is granted to
banned users to freely post under their own name.
You are right to say that there are other mechanisms (and that we
should encourage the use of these), but if the
user uses the on-wiki
method, I don't see why we should ignore their suggestions for the
sake of maintaining policy.
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)
We don't have to *ignore* it, but we shouldn't interact/endorse them, or
support them by proxy. Isn't that a policy violation to post on behalf of a
banned user? Isn't reposting a banned users contribution... the same thing?
Banned people can address whatever they want via OTRS, oversight, etc.
I am saying that if we are going to turn a blind eye to this for the loudest
people, we need to do it for all banned people, and put it in the policy as
that is what practice is. If that is NOT accepted, that we don't let banned
people post with a nudge and wink, lets say so.
Would this be problematic? I'm not suggesting we overlook the
behaviour of all banned users, but I have never seen why exceptional
edits (such as those which are of benefit to Wikipedia, are about the
individual them self, &c.) can't be pragmatically accepted (not
explicitly accepted, but let go). Doing so wouldn't incentivise
editing while being banned since the vast majority of edits are still
against our policy.
I posted a couple of weeks ago about an admin deleting a useful
redirect because it had been created by a user while they were banned.
Surely, to expend our energy deleting and recreating such redirects is
allowing the banned user to continue to disrupt the project?
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)