On 3/29/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/28/07, Vee <vee.be.me(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Okay:
[[Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Allowing_banned_users_to_make_comments_on_talk_pages_of_articles_about_themselves]]
If concensus is for it I wouldn't have a problem with it PROVIDED it was
just on that article's talk page (not DRV, not AfD, other articles,
noticeboards, etc..) and all other "in their name" edits were still nuked
away. They... are banned for a reason.
Let us not throw away common sense and goodwill in favour of nailing down
every last jot and tittle of behaviour in wikilaw.
Banning isn't something that is rigidly enforcable, so there is little point
in pretending that it is. If a banned user is careful and non-contentious,
then they can be a useful contributor without attracting the attention of
the wikiconstables. I find it ridiculous that a person may make an edit
under one username and have it accepted gratefully, and yet that very same
edit under another username will be reverted and reviled.
Just what is the point of "nuking" reasonable contributions? If they make
for a better encyclopaedia, or illuminate the discussion, then leave 'em be,
I say. Otherwise, with a "nuke on sight" policy, we are merely adding fuel
to the fire of criticism that Wikipedia is not so much an encyclopaedia as a
bunch of smalldicks throwing their weight around.
--
Peter in Canberra