On 3/23/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Exactly, thats why I posted this... it seemed
like some editors were/are
determined to give Brandt and Scwartz free passes to post, even as Doc
Glasgow posted, threatened to block anyone who removed comments from Brandt
at one point... I also had people each time I redacted out Brandt's posts
on the article talk page put in links BACK to his redacted comments.
Why do/should Brandt & Schwartz get free passes?
I've seen some people get really anal over this, and indeed I've seen some
editors go to a lot of effort to revert good edits or article creations,
even going so far as to label them "vandalism in progress", so long as they
were by a banned editor they didn't like.
This sort of wikinazi behaviour does nothing to enhance our image; it's
fodder for yet another round of articles poking fun at the community, and
confirmation that Wikipedia is a place where silly power games are
encouraged.
I fundamentally agree with this. Wikipedia is ultimately about the
articles, and not about the editors. If the edit is good it doesn't
matter who did it. To be sure the edits by banned users should be
viewed suspiciously, but when they are checked individually and found to
be good there is no valid reason to remove them. Hopefully, when we are
finally able to have stable versions those can be marked as such.
This should not be about Brandt & Schwartz either. Using serious
problem editors as straw men to justify a broader policy is not a
logical valid way of arguing. If these guys are going to be continuing
problems deal with them on their own merits (or lack thereof), but don't
let them be excuses for dealing with situations that don't involve them.
Ec